Skip to main content

Full text of "The Mattamuskeet documents : a study in social history"

THE LIBRARY OF THE 

UNIVERSITY OF 

NORTH CAROLINA 




THE COLLECTION OF 
NORTH CAROLINIANA 



C970.03 
G24m 



FOR USE ONLY IN 
THE NORTH CAROLINA COLLECTION 




Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2012 with funding from 

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 



http://archive.org/details/mattamuskeetdocuOOgarr 



THE MATTAMUSKEET DOCUMENTS: A STUDY IN SOCIAL HISTORY 



by Patrick H. Garrow 




Archaeology Section 

Division of Archives and History 

Department of Cultural Resources 



THE MATTAMUSKEET DOCUMENTS: A STUDY IN SOCIAL HISTORY 



by Patrick H. Garrow 



Archaeology Section 
Division of Archives and History 
Department of Cultural Resources 
Raleigh, North Carolina 
November, 1975. 



&9- 



in 



CONTENTS 






Abstract v 

Acknowledgements vi 

Introduction , 1 

The Environmental Setting 4 

Archaeological Background 13 

The Historical Background 16 

The Reservation Period 20 

The Post Reservation Period, 1761-1792. . . . „ 29 

The Mattamuskeet Descendents in the Nineteenth Century 32 

Summary 45 

Bibliography 48 

Appendices 

1. John Squire's Will: 20 July, 1723 51 

2. Deed Reference: 20 July 1717 51 

3. Land Grant: 1 April, 1727 „ 52 

4. Land Grant: 1 April, 1727 52 

5. Deed Abstract: 27 September, 1731 53 

6. Deed Abstract: 16 January 1738 ,... 54 

7. Deed Abstract: 3 April, 1739 54 

8. Deed Abstract: 4 April, 1739 55 

9. Deed Abstract: 2 July, 1739.., 55 

10. Deed Abstract: 2 July, 1739 56 

11. Deed Abstract: 16 July, 1742 56 

12. Deed Abstract: 22 April, 1746 57 

13. Deed Abstract: 20 August, 1746 58 

14. Deed Abstract: 14 May, 1747 58 

15. Deed Abstract: 24 February, 1747/48 59 

16. Deed Abstract: 25 February, 1748/49 59 

17. Deed Abstract: 3 March, 1748 bU 

18. Deed Abstract: 19 June, 1749 - 60 

19. Deed Abstract: 21 June, 1749 61 

20. Deed Abstract: 30 June, 1749 61 



21. Deed Abstract: 24 November, 1752 „ 62 

22. Lease Abstract: 24 November, 1752 63 

23. Deed Abstract: 24 November, 1752 63 

24. Deed Abstract: 8 September, 1755 64 

25. Deed Abstract: 11 June, 1755 65 

26. Deed Abstract: 27 September, 1755 65 

27. Deed Abstract: 25 April, 1756 66 

28. Deed Abstract: 27 May, 1756 67 

29. Deed Abstract: 3 June, 1746 67 

30. Deed Abstract: 15 September, 1760 68 

31. Deed Abstract: 9 February, 1761 68 

32. Deed Abstract: 29 May, 1761 69 

33. Deed Abstract: 8 June, 1761 70 

34. Deed Complete: 21 November, 1792 71 

35. Apprentice Reference: March Term, 1765 72 

36. Supportive Documents, Apprentice Bonds: 18 & 19 May, 1804.... 72 

37. Apprentice References: May and August Terms, 1804 73 

38. Slave Uprising: 1831-1834. . .„ 74 

39. Unlawfull Negro Marriage: Spring Term, 1843 75 

40. Apprentice Bonds: 1836-1849 75 

41. Apprentice Bonds : 1850-1866 76 

42. Census: 1850 77 

43. Census: 1860 , 78 

44. Census: 1870 79 



Illustrations 

1. The Mattamuskeet Area: The Price-Strother Map of 1808 8 

2. The Mattamuskeet Area: Hyde County Maintenance Map, 1972 10 

3. Apprenticeships by Five Year Increments, 1830-1864 36 

4. Ages of Initial Apprenticeship, 1834-1865 39 



The Mattamuskeet Documents: A Study in Social History 

Abstract 

Recent research has revealed the existence of a large number of 
unpublished documents concerning the Mattamuskeet Indians. Included 
among these documents are numerous land deeds and apprentice bonds 
which date from the early eighteenth through the middle of the nineteenth 
centuries. 

The Mattamuskeet Reservation was a creation of the Tuscarora 
War, and was inhabited by remnants of various small groups from coastal 
North Carolina. The reservation consisted of four miles square of marsh 
and low ridges along Lake Mattamuskeet in Hyde County, North Carolina. 
The sale of reservation lands to white neighbors began as early as 1731, 
and was completed by 1761. Sporadic references to Indians persisted in 
Hyde County records until the early nineteenth century. Numerous refer- 
ences to individuals with Mattamuskeet surnames occurred after that time 
under the general label of "free persons of colore" A few individuals 
with Mattamuskeet surnames still reside in Hyde County. 

This paper presents preliminary interpretations of the newly dis- 
covered Mattamuskeet documents within the context of previously published 
data on the group. 



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

A number of people provided significant aid during the research and 
write-up phases of this project. James Woods HeSmith, formerly of the 
North Carolina Division of Archives and History, Archaeology Section, 
helped gather research data during the initial phases of this project, as 
well as assisting in establishing the research approach used. Dr. Larry 
Tise, Director of the Division of Archives and History, provided aid and 
support of several types during the research phase. Dr. Stephen J. Gluckman, 
Chief of the Archaeology Section, Division of Archives and History, pro- 
vided helpful criticisms and active support for the project, Timothy 
Thompson, also of the Archaeology Section staff, freely gave editorial help 
as well as meaningful criticism of the early drafts of the manuscript. 
George Stevenson of the Archives Section of the Division of Archives and 
History, made his extensive research files available and suggested several 
fruitful lines of approach for the project. Dr. Jerry Cashion, head of 
the Research Branch of the Division of Archives and History, provided expert 
assessment of the documents uncovered in the research as well as welcome 
encouragement for the project. Steve Foreman of the Archaeology Section 
prepared the graphics for this report. Ann Ritter of the Archaeology Section 
prepared the final typed manuscript and provided proofreading and editorial 
aid. 

Several residents of Hyde County deserve special recognition for 
the aid they have given this project. Ms. Rebecca Swindell of Fairfield, 
and Mr. R. So Spencer of Engelhard made their extensive knowledge of Hyde 
County available and were of great assistance in making necessary contacts 
in that county. Ms. Lucy Williams, Assistant Clerk of Court for Hyde County, 
provided numerous valuable research leads that materially added to the 



finished paper. Mr. Leon Ballance of Nebraska gave freely of his time and 
extensive knowledge of local place names during this author's visit to 
Hyde County. Mr. Al Green of Engelhard, and Mr. Charles Carowan of Fair- 
field provided helpful information on potential archaeological sites in 
the county. Ms. Dessie Barber and Ms. Janey B. Mackey of Lake Landing 
provided interesting kinship data concerning the Mattamuskeet descendents. 
Perhaps the greatest debt of gratitude is owed to Mr. Napoleon "Poley" 
Mackey of Fairfield. His concern for and interest in the history of the 
Indians of Hyde County made many parts of this research much more meaningful. 

Mr. F. Roy Johnson of the Johnson Printing Company of Murfrees- 
boro, North Carolina, has certainly facilitated this research. Mr. Johnson 
made his extensive knowledge of North Carolina available to this researcher, 
and was largely responsible for the initiation of the project. 

Most of all, I would like to thank my wife, Diane, and my sons, 
Tom and Mike, for putting up with this research for the past year. 

Many people have aided this research and the final write-up, 
but the author assumes full responsibility for errors of interpretation 
and research. 



INTRODUCTION 

This paper is the product of a research project which has been 
pursued by this author on a part-time basis over the past year. The 
initial research began as an attempt to determine the potential for devel- 
oping significant new data on Indians in the Historic period in North 
Carolina through archival research. The Indians of Mattamuskeet were 
chosen as a starting point for this project, because that group had owned 
a large tract of land in the form of a reservation at a time when record 
keeping in North Carolina had become more systematic than in earlier times. 
This author believed that ownership of that tract by the Mattamuskeets 
gave the group a commodity that was desirable to the Colonial settlers. 
Also, it was a commodity that was likely to have left traces in the County 
Records in the form of deeds of sale. Other coastal North Carolina groups 
could have been chosen for those same reasons, but less was available in 
print on the Mattamuskeets, and that group seemed to offer the best test 
for the feasibility of a large scale research project. 

The Indians of Mattamuskeet turned out to be an excellent choice. 
The Hyde County Records, which contain most of the unpublished documents 
concerning the group, are well organized and nearly intact. Thirty-two 
deeds and grants were eventually found that related directly to the Indians 
of Mattamuskeet. These documents provided the surnames present in the group 
during the Reservation period, as well as insights into the leadership 
patterns, settlement pattern, and population. The deeds and grants also 
provided excellent data on kinship and social change through time. These 
documents led to the discovery of other unpublished records concerning the 
group. The additional documents included an early will and later appren- 
tice bonds. Data from documents of all periods made it possible to use 
the available Federal Census information. These data made possible the 
identification of at least some of the contemporary descendents of the 
Indians of Mattamuskeet. This in turn led to the utilization of marriage 
records from the second half of the nineteenth century to the present 
time in order to develop an understanding of the kinship patterns present. 
The end product of this research was the identification of contemporary 
descendents of the Mattamuskeet Indians who were not reflected by any 
contemporary account or record. 



The paper which follows was based on a set of working hypotheses 
which could not be adequately tested in all cases with the available data. 
The major hypothesis presented in this paper is that it is possible to 
reverse the normal methodology used in ethnohistorical research. Most 
projects begin with a known contemporary group and attempt to project their 
history back through time. Under this approach, if a researcher began a 
project on a group such as the contemporary Catawba, he would try to 
achieve an idea of what it presently means to be a Catawba, and would 
then try to determine how that contemporary view was achieved through 
researching the history of the group. The paper which follows represents 
an attempt to begin with an historical group, and trace that group to con- 
temporary descendents who have no group identity. This was achieved through 
careful study of the records of a single county through time and working 
from the oldest county records to the most recent. This hypothesis was 
adequately tested in the case of the Mattamuskeet Indians, but not in terms 
of the larger scale applicability of the methodology. There simply are 
not sufficient data in the ethnohistorical literature to use for a compar- 
ative study necessary to validate the methodology. Additional research 
projects based on the Mattamuskeet model are planned for other North 
Carolina coastal Indian groups in the near future. These groups are the 
Yeopim, Chowan, and Tuscarora Indians. These studies hopefully will 
provide the comparative data that is lacking in this paper. 

The second major working hypothesis developed in the paper that 
follows is predicated on the concept that it is possible to extract parti- 
cular social data from documents that were not designed to reflect that type 
of data. Specifically, it was assumed that the deeds and grants from the 
Reservation period reflected leadership and settlement patterns as well as 
providing population and kinship data. Also, it was assumed that kinship 
and social change data could be extracted from the available apprentice 
bonds and census information. This hypothesis could not be adequately 
tested due to lack of complimentary data that could be developed from 
archaeological surveys and excavations, but the inferences presented can, 
and hopefully will, provide the impetus for the collection of the needed 
information. 

Most of the research for this paper was conducted in the North 
Carolina State Archives in Raleigh. This author spent a week in Hyde 



County in September of this year in order to acquire certain records not 
represented in the Raleigh Archives. The Hyde County Records located at 
the Court House at the County seat of Swan Quarter were extremely well 
organized, and yielded several significant documents. Additional types 
of research conducted during that trip included interviews with descendents 
of the Mattamuskeets, and attempts to locate some of the original Indian 
homesteads. Interviews with the Mattamuskeet descendents added several 
bits of significant information to the project, but the small scale 
archaeological survey was frustrated by heavy crop cover and other factors. 
Everyone this author approached for information in Hyde County was quite 
helpful and willing to contribute the knowledge at his or her command. 

The paper that follows should be viewed as a preliminary state- 
ment on the Mattamuskeet research project, A great deal of research remains 
to be done on this project. The final research results will be published 
at a later time, but in the meantime this paper will serve to make available 
the basic documentary sources revealed by this research. 



THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 

The modern limits of Hyde County extend to Okracoke Island on the 
east, Dare, Tyrrell and Washington Counties to the north, and Beaufort 
County to the west. The Pamlico River forms the southern boundary. Fully 
eighty-five percent of Hyde County is classified as wetland. Mattamuskeet 
(42,000 acres) and Alligator (5,000 acres) Lakes are the county's major 
physiographic features (Wilson 1962, 59). 

The Hyde County wetlands provide excellent habitats for many 
species of game animals, including deer, bear, and migratory waterfowl 
(Wilson 1962, 59-60). A recent environmental impact statement done on 
the Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge reflects the rich flora and 
fauna present in the Lake Mattamuskeet area of Hyde County. According to 
this study, over 200 different species of birds spend all or part of the 
year around Lake Mattamuskeet. Also, deer, black bear, squirrels, rabbits, 
bobcats, raccoons, mink, oppossums, otter, muskrats, and other species of 
mammals live around the Lake (anon. 1975, 29-30). A study of Lake Matta- 
muskeet fish populations done by scientists from North Carolina State 
University indicates that at least forty different species of fish can 
be found in the Lake (anon. 1969, 4-5). Hyde County flora varies radically 
according to the drainage characteristics of specific areas. The flora 
ranges from mixed Cyprus and hardwoods, through large stands of white 
cedar, and open, more typical swamp growths. The flora and fauna of Hyde 
County are rich and varied, and would have provided an extensive set of 
resources for hunting and gathering activities. 

The wetlands /nonwetlands ratio in Hyde County is indicative of 
the low topographic relief in the county. The maximum elevation in the 



county is about eighteen feet, and elevations of that magnitude are 
restricted to the northwest part of the county. Six soil associations 
are found in the county. All are characterized by varying degrees of 
poor drainage (SCS 19 72, 1-20). None of the major soil types are amenable 
to large scale agriculture without the use of drainage ditches and canals. 
A few localized areas do occur throughout the County where agriculture is 
possible without extensive drainage preparations. The soils of Hyde County 
are extremely rich, and in many areas contain large quantities of poorly 
decomposed vegetable matter. The vegetable fiber content in some of the 
soil associations is so high that the soil can actually burn, and sub- 
surface fires have long been common in those areas. According to Indian 
legend Lake Mattamuskeet was formed by such a gigantic burn-out, but this 
has not been substantiated by modern research (anon. 1968, 1). 

Few areas of Hyde County were suited for the type of agriculture 
used by Indians of the East prior to white contact. Usable land was ap- 
parently concentrated along a few major creeks and rivers. Specialized 
areas such as the low ridge which surrounded the original perimeter of 
Lake Mattamuskeet were also utilized. The southwestern portion of Hyde 
County appears to have contained the largest percentage of land suited for 
precontact agricultural use. This is reflected by the relatively large 
number of known archaeological sites in that area (see Haag 1958, Figure 2). 
The area east of Lake Mattamuskeet where the reservation was located , appears 
to have been much better suited to hunting and gathering than agriculture. 
Today this is a highly productive farming area. Present day agricultural 
success has been the product of large drainage projects that have made the 
land usable. 

The area originally included in the Mattamuskeet Reservation has 
undergone extensive changes since the early nineteenth century. The earliest 



drainage canals were apparently dug by slave labor. It was not until 
the early twentieth century that the most radical drainage projects were 
implemented. The largest project was undertaken by the New Holland Land 
Company in the 1920' s. It resulted in Lake Mattamuskeet being drained and 
planted in crops. This venture failed due to a combination of factors, 
but the project has left an indelible mark on the land (anon. 196-3, 1-2). 

The original reservation lands are presently crisscrossed with 
drainage canals. The major creeks which penetrated the reservation have 
silted up and have been replaced by canals. Most of the minor creeks 
which bounded Pamlico Sound appear to have survived, but it is difficult to 
locate interior landmarks mentioned in the Mattamuskeet deeds. It is possible 
to reconstruct the major landforms present in the Reservation period through 
careful study of a series of historical maps and correlation of those 
maps to landmarks mentioned in the deeds. The most accurate map drawn 
before the land was changed by drainage canals appears to be the Price- 
Strother Map of 1808 (see figure 1) . This map was drawn from the first 
actual survey of North Carolina, and depicts relationships that can be 
confirmed through careful study of modern topographic maps. 

The Mattamuskeet deeds present the names of four major creeks. 
These names are: Old Mattamuskeet Creek, New Mattamuskeet Creek, Middle 
Creek, and Wiasockin Creek. Evidence within the deeds and on historical 
maps indicate that the names New Mattamuskeet and Middle Creek referred 
to the same creek. Old Mattamuskeet Creek formed the northern boundary of 
the reservation. This was probably the same as Gibbs Creek on the Price- 
Strother Map. New Mattamuskeet or Middle Creek was, according to the 
Moseley Map of 1733 (Cummings 1966), located south of Old Mattamuskeet 
Creek. This apparently corresponds to Middle town Creek located at Middle- 
town, North Carolina (see figure 2) „ Wiasocken Creek was located near the 



Figure 1. The Mattamuskeet Area: The Price-Strother Map of 1808, 

Courtesy of North Carolina In Maps , by William P. Cummings, 
North Carolina Division of Archives and History, 1966. 





Ik I 



XV 









Figure 2. The Mattamuskeet Area: Hyde County Maintenance Map, 1972, 
Courtesy of the North Carolina Highway Commission. 



BiMinMIifliiliifli 

. ifcwttiiiiii i-.i.-.v 




11 



southern boundary of the reservation, and emptied into what is now called 
Wyesocking Bay. None of these creeks penetrated all the way to Lake 
Mattamuskeet. 

Numerous minor creeks are mentioned in the deeds. Careful map 
study and consultation with Mr. Leon Ballance of Hyde County (1975) 
have revealed the locations of some of these. Rattlesnake Hammock Creek, 
mentioned on the 1738 deed (see appendix 6) , was located at the present 
outfall area of Rattlesnake Canal. It may have corresponded precisely 
with present Jeanette Creek,. Rattlesnake Hammock may have been the eigh- 
teenth century name for Jeanette Hammock. This location is about halfway 
between Middletown Creek and Wyesocking Bay and where Jeanette Creek 
empties into Pamlico Sound. Cedar Creek and Lone (Tree) Creek are mentioned 
in a deed drawn 3 April, 1739. Both creek names are still used. These 
creeks are located north of the mouth of Middletown Creek. Both creeks 
empty into Pamlico Sound, and the map relationship between the two is the 
same as described in the 1739 deed (see appendix 7) „ Strahan or Strawhorn 
Creek was mentioned in deeds drawn up in 4 April, 1739, and 21 June, 1749 
(see appendices 8 & 19). This creek was a tributary of Wiasocken Creek, 
and was located near modern Nebraska, North Carolina (see figure 2). 
Long Creek, mentioned on a deed dated 2 July, 1739 (see appendix 10) could 
not be located on modern maps. Cedar Bush Bay and Lone Tree Creek, men- 
tioned on a deed dated 30 June, 1749 were located on the north side of 
Wyesocking Bay, Lone Tree Creek (not the creek of the same name in the 
3 April, 1739 deed) is shown on modern maps without a name change. Cedar 
Bush Bay apparently corresponds to the mouth of contemporary Brooks Creek, 
The 30 June, 1749 deed apparently transferred the parcel of land shown in 
figure 2 as Long Point. Thomas Arrowpres Creek, named in a deed dated 



12 



27 May, 1756 (see appendix 28), was apparently a tributary of Wiasocken Creek, 
but the name has not survived on modern maps. 

Although a few creek names have survived unchanged, relatively 
few place names attributable to the Mattamuskeets have survived. The 
name Mattamuskeet has been perpetuated in the lake of that name. 
Wiasocken Creek has been preserved in the form of Wyesocking Bay. Mackey 
Point, located in Wyesocking Bay, is the only known place name based on 
a Mattamuskeet surname that has survived. 



13 



ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND 

Little has reached print on the archaeology of coastal North 
Carolina. This is especially true of the area encompassed by this paper. 
William Haag (1958, 1) stated in the Introduction to his publication 
entitled The Archeology of Coastal North Carolina ; "...it may be said 
that the bordering lands of the Carolina Sound- that great stretch of 
Albemarle, , Pamlico, Croatan, and Roanoke Sounds- are terra incognita 
to the archeologists. " Haag's survey did a great deal to provide an 
archaeological baseline for this area, but little has been done to expand 
that baseline in the intervening years. David Phelps of East Carolina 
University, and Joffre Coe of the University of North Carolina at Chapel 
Hill have collected a good bit of archaeological data from that area in 
recent years. Publication of their data will undoubtedly answer many of the 
questions raised by Haag's survey. In the meantime, Haag's 1958 publication 
remains as the sole source of area-wide information. 

Most of the archaeological sites found during Haag's survey were 
located on the Outer Banks, along the Pamlico River, and on the Currituck 
Penninsula. A few additional sites were discovered in the area from the 
Neuse River to the south to the Albemarle Sound to the north (1958, figure 2), 
The concentration of effort evident from the survey maps was apparently the 
result of one of the major goals established for the project. This goal 
was to develop evidence on the fate of the Lost Colony (1958, 1). Thus, 
the survey was biased towards identification of sites depicted on the 1585 
John White Map. There is no way at present to determine whether or not 
this approach resulted in a distorted picture of the archaeological re- 
sources present within the project area. However, it may mean that additional 
survey and test excavations will change the archaeological perspective 
provided for the area by Haag. 



14 



Haag divided the archaeological chronology of the area into 
Early, Middle, Protohistoric, and Historic periods. The Early and Middle 
periods were rather poorly defined, but the later periods appeared to have 
a bit more meaning (1958, 126-131). The ambiguity of Haag's periods was 
due mainly to the slow rate of change evident in items of material culture 
of the area through time. Haag noted that there appeared to be a tran- 
sition from sand and grit tempered pottery to shell tempered pottery 
through time, and that shell tempered wares were relatively late (1958, 
65 and 115). Haag attributed this conservatism to the fact that the 
occupation history of the area did not span much more than a thousand 
years, and that the area was inhabited by individuals of similar cultural 
origin during that time (1958, 114-115). It is likely that Haag is at 
least partially correct in this assessment, but the possibility must 
remain that his survey returned these results because he restricted the 
work to a single type of environmental niche. 

Haag noted that several distinctive surface finishes were present 
on the ceramics collected by his survey. Fabric-impressed ware was re- 
presented in all of Haag's periods. This is significant since fabric- 
impressed pottery is associated with Algonkian occupancy in areas north of 
eastern North Carolina (1958, 114). Cord marking, plain, net-impressions, 
simple stamping and other surface finishes were present in greater or 
lesser frequencies. Haag was able to make distinctions by surface finish 
on temporal and geographic grounds, but a good deal more work is needed 
on that subject to validate his findings. 

The remainder of the material items recovered by Haag were not 
particularly helpful in defining temporal or geographic distinctions. 
There were a few minor exceptions, but for the most part little can be 
gained by discussing the material culture of the area at this time. 



15 



Haag's periods do seem to be valid in terms of changes in 
subsistence patterns, settlement patterns, and political/religious structures. 
The Early period was characterized by a hunting-fishing-gathering economy, 
with a primary dependence on shellfish. The people in this period appear 
to have had prescribed territories, but were "semi-nomadic" within those 
territories. Social organization was apparently based on matrilineal bauds 
(1958, 128). The Middle period was marked by the introduction of agri- 
culture, and the gradual transition of items of material culture from 
"early" to "late" types (1958, 128). The Protohistoric period extended 
from around 1500-1583, and was apparently delineated more on the basis 
of the potential impact of white contacts than on concrete data (1958, 
129-130). The Historic period began with the Roanoke Island settlements, 
and was initially delineated by the growth of chief doms, and later by 
the disintegration of the aboriginal culture (1958, 130) . 

The archaeological baseline for this area is quite meager. 
Haag's classic study of the North Carolina coast should be considered as 
a starting point for future studies. Until Haag's work is expanded by 
published studies, researchers will have to be satisfied with the intri- 
guing glimpses into the past provided by Haag. 



16 



THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 

The English involved with the attempted settlements on Roanoke 
Island from 1585-1590 found themselves in contact with groups that spoke 
a common language that was derived from the Algonkian language stock. 
There was a high degree of linguistic and cultural uniformity throughout 
the area explored by the English at that time, although several major 
political divisions were present among the Indian inhabitants. Maurice 
Mook (1944), in his article, "Algonkian Ethnohistory of the Carolina Sound," 
identified six major divisions that he listed as "tribes." The "tribes" 
described by Mook were the Weapemeoc, Chowanoc, Moratoc, Secotan, Pomouik, 
and Neusiok. Those groups were distributed from close to the modern 
North Carolina-Virginia border to the north to the Neuse River to the 
south, and were restricted to the coastal zone. Each "tribe" apparently 
consisted of the chief's town or village, other towns or villages with 
individual town chiefs, and dispersed individual homesteads, It is evident 
from studying the data presented by Mook that the colonists were in contact 
with six chiefdoms, not six tribes as has been traditionally stated. 
Haag (1958, 130) believed that these chiefdoms were rather recent creations 
at the time of the Roanoke Island settlement attempts, and that those 
groups were the products of earlier white contacts. Restudy of the available 
ethnographic accounts in light of the data developed by Haag's archaeolo- 
gical survey indicates that that was indeed the case. 

The chiefdom of Secotan occupied the area in 1585 that was later 
to include the Mattamuskeet Reservation. Extensive contacts were maintained 
between the Roanoke Island colonists and the Indians of Secotan, although the 
ethnographic accounts that have survived are rather sketchy. According to 
Mook (1944, 213): "This tribe's domain extended from Albemarle Sound to 
lower Pamlico River and from Roanoke Island to the west-central region of 



17 



present Beaufort County. . .The northeastern section of the peninsula 
between the Pamlico and Neuse Rivers was also a part of Secotan territory." 
This large territory apparently supported a relatively sparse population, 
and as Mook remarked, "...it was not the largest and strongest tribe of 
the region." 

Eight villages of the Secotan chiefdom were plotted on John 
White's 1585 map. Half of these villages were located in the Pamlico 
River area, including the village named "Secotan." Secotan was the place 
of residence of the leader of the chiefdom. It is significant that his 
village was located in the apparent area of the greatest population density 
(Haag 1958, 16). The remaining Secotan villages were scattered over the 
Secotan territory. The village of Pomeioc was apparently located within 
the area that was later to be incorporated into the Mattamuskeet Reservation. 

There is a gap of almost a century in the recorded history of the 
Indians of the area following the unsuccessful Roanoke Island settlements. 
Significant changes had been wrought in the interim by the impact of white 
diseases and other adverse factors. The area formerly occupied by the 
Weapemeoc was inhabited by four small bands by the late seventeenth century. 
The Chawanoc had been reduced to about fifteen warriors by the time John 
Lawson described them in 1709. That group had been the largest and most 
powerful of all the Algonkian chief doms in coastal North Carolina in 1585. 
No trace of the Moratoc chiefdom remained by around 1700. Little remained 
of the Secotan chiefdom by the eighteenth century. Lawson noted in 1709 
that the Hatteras tribe had 16 warriors, and resided near Cape Hatteras. 
The Machapunga, sometimes referred to as the Mattamuskeet or Maramiskeet, 
resided in Hyde and eastern Beaufort County at that same time and had 
thirty warriors (Mook 1944, 221-224). The North Carolina Colonial Records 
and the Albemarle County Records (Johnson 1972, 189-190) indicate that 



18 



another small band lived in the area adjacent to the Machapunga to the 
south. That group was referred to as the Bay River Indians, and may have 
simply been a division of the Machapunga. The remnants of the Pomouik 
chief dom had been reduced to fifteen warriors by 1709, and were called the 
Pamlico Indians. The Neusiok chief dom had become the Neuse Indians by 
1709, and according to Lawson, had fifteen warriors (Mook 1944, 219-110). 

Little is known about the culture of the coastal Indians during the 
late period. It must be presumed that the groups had become more or less 
acculturated, and had established a primary dependence on trade with the 
Virginia traders. It is known that encroachment by white settlers on 
Indian lands was causing problems by 1700, and that those encroachments 
were largely responsible for increasing the hostility between Indians 
and whites. The Indians north of Albemarle Sound apparently did not become 
involved in these hostilities and the Tuscarora War that followed, but the 
Indians of what had been the Secotan area were well represented. 

The North Carolina Colonial Records and the Albemarle County 
Records are replete with examples of the minor clashes that took place 
between white settlers and Indians prior to the Tuscarora War. One example 
will suffice at this time to indicate the tense climate of the times in 
the coastal area from the late seventeenth century to 1711. This incident 
took place between a white settler named Powell, and a band of sixteen Bay 
River Indians led by their chief called "King Louther" (also called King 
Southel in some documents). The incident took place in 1704, and involved 
a raid by the Indians on the settler's house. Powell, the settler, confronted 
King Louther and told him that he was going to make a report of the incident 
to a local authority named Captain Barrow. King Louther responded by saying 
that Capto Barrow "...might kiss his arse." The Indians let Powell go 



19 



after threatening him. Powell blamed the entire incident on the Virginia 
traders (Albemarle County Papers, Vol. 1, Folio 56). This incident, by 
itself, was quite trivial, but the incidents of this nature increased in 
frequency and became more serious as the Tuscarora War approached. 

The Tuscarora War which was waged from 1711 to 1715 ended as 
a disaster for many of the small coastal Algonkian groups. The Machapunga 
(Mattamuskeet) , Bay River, Pamlico, and Neuse joined the lower Tuscarora 
towns, the Coree, Woccon, and perhaps other small coastal groups in the 
war against the white settlers. Several of the small coastal groups 
disappeared completely as a result of the war, and the remainder were 
greatly reduced in population (see Lee 1968 and Johnson 1968 for accounts 
of the warfare). The Mattamuskeet Reservation period began at the end of 
the Tuscarora War and must be viewed as a product of those hostilities. 



20 



THE RESERVATION PERIOD 

The last phase of the Tuscarora War ended in 1715 when the 
Colonial Council made peace with the warring Indians. The surviving 
fragments of the shattered coastal tribes were given permission to settle 
in the Lake Mattamuskeet area. The Council position was reiterated in 
1718 when it ordered illegal settlers on Indian land to leave (Johnson 
1972, 211-212). 

Settlement pressure by whites was the greatest problem that the 
Indians at Mattamuskeet faced after the Tuscarora War. King Squires and 
King Mackey of Mattamuskeet requested that their lands be surveyed and 
conveyed as a formal grant to the group in 1724. The Colonial Council 
concurred with this request, and ordered the surveyor general to survey 
a four mile square area for the reservation (Johnson 1972, 212). The land 
grant was not formally approved by the Council until 1 April, 1727, and 
it is apparent from the wording of the grant that the reservation had 
not been surveyed as ordered by the Council (see appendices 3 and 4). 

The original grant document for the reservation has survived, 
and is currently on file in the Land Grant Library in the North Carolina 
Secretary of States office. According to this document, the reservation 
began, "...at the Mouth of Old Mattamuskeet creek, runing up that creek 

and the Northern most branch of it to the head thereof, thence to the Lake 

o s 
S W (gap) pole, then along the Lake Southerly to Matchapungo Bluff 

o s 
Woods, then N E to Pamlicoe sound, from thence along Pamlicoe sound to 

the first Station,, . . (see appendix 4)." Careful study of subsequent deeds 

and historical maps on file with the North Carolina Archives indicates that 

the reservation ran from modern Englehard on the north, to below Wyesocking 

Bay on the south. The Reservation included the land from Pamlico Sound to 

Lake Mattamuskeet between those two points. If this reconstruction is 



21 



correct, the reservation measured approximately five by nine miles, well 
over twice the 10,240 acres mentioned in the original grant. This error 
is hardly surprising considering the roughness of the terrain, the isolation 
of the area, and the lack of an actual survey. 

The 1727 land grant indicates that "King Squires", and King 
Squires alone, was the chief of the Indians at Mattamuskeet. The reservation 
was given to the Indians in exchange for two buckskins and an annual 
quitrent of one shilling per one hundred acres. The Colonial Council 
granted all rights of the land with the exception of half the value of all 
gold and silver mines that might be discovered (see appendix 4) . 

The Indians at Mattamuskeet had begun selling land even before 
receipt of the formal grant from the Council. The Beaufort County Records 
contain a notation concerning a land sale as early as 1717 between the chief 
of the Mattamuskeets and a white settler named Richard Jasper (see appendix 2) 
Land sales began in earnest in 173 1„ Twenty-nine deeds were entered on 
reservation lands in the Hyde County Records between that time and 8 June, 
1761. It is probable that a number of additional deeds were drawn up and 
land sales completed during that period since several deeds were entered 
in neighboring Currituck County. The Currituck County Records have not 
survived intact, and the surviving records were not thoroughly checked 
during this research. The available deeds offer valuable insights concerning 
the Mattamuskeet Reservation, and make possible a limited reconstruction of 
the social structure that was present. 

The population on the Mattamuskeet Reservation was apparently 
never very large. The main groups that made up the reservation in 1715 
were the Coree and Machapunga - groups that had long been enemies. There 
is no evidence that the Coree group remained at Mattamuskeet for any length 
of time, and it is probably safe to assume that the Coree rejoined their 



22 



traditional allies, the Tuscarora, at the earliest opportunity. The 
documents do not indicate the size of the group prior to 1731, but Governor 
Burrington indicated that about twenty families resided on the reservation 
in that year (Johnson 1972, 212). The Colonial records state that only 
eight or ten people lived on the reservation in 1755 (Johnson 1972, 212), 
and the 1761 deed which terminated the reservation contained the signatures 
of only six adult males. 

Relatively few surnames occur on the Mattamuskeet land deeds. 
The surnames Squires, Mackey, Long Tom, and Russell are present. It 
is likely that the single individual with the Russell surname was in actuality 
a Mackey. The Squires family was presumably the largest one on the reserva- 
tion. Five different individuals with the surname Squires were represented 
on deeds from 1731 to 1761. Two individuals with the Long Tom surname 
signed deeds during this period. Although there are slight differences 
in the way the name appears, it is apparent from documents after the 
Reservation period that Long Tom was the proper surname for these individuals 
(see the 1792 deed, appendix 34, as an example). The Mackey surname was 
represented by at least one, and in all probability, three individuals. 
There is some confusion concerning one of the individuals, as he was called 
"Joseph Russell Mackey" on a deed dated 1748/49, and Joseph Russell on 
deeds dated 1747, 1746, and 1761 (see appendices 16, 14, 27, and 33). The 
Squires, Mackey and Long Tom surnames were not represented among the early white 
settlers in Hyde County. 

Leadership on the reservation from at least 1718 to 1746 was 
provided by John Squires. He is described in the documents as being the 
"chief" or "king" of the group. He was apparently assisted in this role 
by at least two advisors. A 1731 deed infers that John Mackey and Long 
Tom acted as his advisors, but none of the deeds indicate that this was a 



23 



formal arrangement (see appendix 5). The deeds convey the impression 
that the reservation was largely held together by the leadership of John 
Squires during his lifetime, but offer few insights into his nature. 
The Beaufort County Records contain a will prepared by John Squires and 
entered into the records in 1723. The will reads as though it was written 
by a missionary and is not very specific. The will left his entire worldly 
estate to his wife, Mary Squires (see appendix 1)=, John Squires took a 
direct role in all of the recorded land sales on the reservation until 1746. 
John Squires apparently died in late spring or summer, 1746, This is 
deduced from the fact that he was indirectly involved in a land sale on 
22 April of that year, but was not mentioned in a land sale concluded on 
20 August, 1746 (see appendices 12 & 13). Subsequent references to John 
Squires in deeds indicate that he was deceased. 

Charles Squires, son of John Squires, was described as "King of the 
Arromoskeet Indians" on a deed dated 24 February, 1747/8 (see appendix 15) . 
His title was listed as "Proprietor of Arromuskeet" in a 1749 deed (see 
appendix 18). Charles Squires retained that title until at least 1752, 
when he attempted two deeds of sale, and one lease for the entire reservation 
(see appendices 21, 22, and 23). The deeds do not reflect a clearcut leader 
on the reservation between 1752 and 1760. A deed drawn up 15 September, 1760, 
indicated that George Squires, brother of Charles Squires and son of John 
Squires, shared the title of chief with James Tom (see appendix 30). 
This is the only deed after 1752 which gives insight into the leadership of 
the group. The general impression conveyed by the documents is that the 
group lacked cohesion and meaningful leadership during the latter stages of 
the reservation period. The entire reservation was sold in 1761 to three 
white settlers. The deed was apparently signed by all of the heads of 
household residing on the reservation at that time. A total of six individuals 

signed that deed (see appendix 33). 



24 



The leadership pattern suggested by the deeds gives only a 
superficial insight into the powers of the leader of the Mattamuskeet 
during the Reservation period. The leader at that time did not have the 
power or support accorded chiefs of the area in earlier times. The 
chief no longer resided in a village that was the center of religious and 
political activity. Also, there is no evidence that the members of the 
group provided the chief with his means of support. Also, there is no 
evidence that the position was inherited through the mother as Haag (1958, 
17) and others have implied. It is apparent that the population simply 
was not large enough to sustain the leadership structure as it had been 
constituted in earlier times. 

The major role of the chief of the Mattamuskeet appears to have 
been to act as a representative from the group to the white authorities. 
John Squires represented the interests of the group in land sales during 
his lifetime, and probably acted as an arbitrator of disputes within the 
group. Charles Squires appears to have alienated his own people with 
his attempted land dealings. The two 1752 attempted sales of the reservation 
were not signed by all of the individuals listed on the deed. Although 
these were the only deeds of sale made from 1731 to 1761 that were entered 
in the Land Grants Office, the sales were rejected by the group. The 
rejection of these deeds of sale and the lease which accompanied them 
(see Appendices 21, 22, and 23) was also a rejection of Charles Squires' 
position of leadership. The events which followed indicated that the 
group was neither large enough nor cohesive enough to cope with that 
crisis. 

The settlement pattern depicted by the Mattamuskeet deeds was 
one of dispersed homesteads located primarily along the major creeks on 
the Reservation. The home of John Squires was located at the mouth of 



25 



New Mattamuskeet Creek (Middle Creek, currently called Middlfetown 
Creek). His "plantation" was a tract of 150 acres which ran for 291.5 
yards at the mouth of the creek, and south for a mile along the high land 
facing the marsh at the edge of Pamlico Sound. This homestead was the 
most centrally located tract on the reservation in terms of water travel. 
John Squires sold his "plantation" to Francis Credle, a white settler, in 
1742 for 100 North Carolina Pounds (see appendix 11). Long Tom's homestead 
was seemingly located west of John Squires' home and on the shore of 
Lake Mattamuskeet. His homestead was called "Long Tom's rice patch," 
and consisted of sixty-five acres. Long Tom sold his homestead to Casson 
Brinson, a white settler, in 1746 for six Pounds Virginia Currency (see 
appendix 12). John Mackey, Joseph Russell Mackey, and George Squires had 
their homesteads along Wiasocken Creek. A deed drawn in 1748 indicates that 
the homesteads of John Mackey and George Squires were probably on adjoining 
tracts (see appendix 17). Joseph Russell Mackey's homestead was evidently 
located on a one hundred-acre tract that he purchased from John Mackey in 
1748/49 (see appendix 16). That tract was across Wiasocken Creek from 
John Mackey's homestead. It was not possible to pinpoint the homesteads 
of the remaining Mattamuskeets, but the distribution of those tracts probably 
reflect the pattern outlined above. 

Haag, in his discussion of the settlement pattern of the 
Algonkian groups in the general area pointed out that ethnographic accounts 
described a pattern of dispersed homesteads located around central villages. 
The villages were small, and were inhabited by members of the leadership 
structure. Individuals who were not members of the leadership structure 
lived on homesteads placed in areas that could sustain the form of agriculture 
practiced. Haag stated that his survey reflected this settlement pattern 
for northeast North Carolina (1958, 16). 



26 



Within the perspective of the early ethnographic accounts and 
the validation of those accounts by Haag, the Mattamuskeet settlement 
pattern assumes new meaning. John Squires' homestead replaced the central 
village present in earlier times. The group size was simply too small for 
the central village structure to have survived. The remainder of the 
group lived dispersed throughout the reservation on tracts that were 
suited for their form of agriculture. The Mattamuskeet settlement pattern 
was perhaps a variation of an earlier pattern, and was at least partially 
the product of restricted group size and constricted territory. 

The subsistence pattern of the Mattamuskeets during the 
Reservation period could not be adequately reconstructed from the avail- 
able data. The individual "plantations" mentioned in the deeds allows 
the inference that agriculture on some scale was practiced on the reservation. 
The term "Long Tom's rice patch" used on the 22 April, 1746 deed implies 
this crop was grown , but that could not be determined with certainty 
(see appendix 12) . Several deeds use terms like "houses Orchards & Gardens 
fenses" when referring to what may be improvements on those tracts, but 
that may have been a legal convention rather than an attempt to describe 
what was present. Charles Squires did retain the hunting rights on the 
reservation for the Mattamuskeets in his attempted 1752 lease document (see 
appendix 22). This may indicate that hunting was still an important pursuit 
on the reservation, but equally, it may reflect Charles Squires' major 
subsistence pursuit or other factors. 

A full discription of the subsistence pattern of the Mattamus- 
keets in the Reservation period must await the results of future archaeological 
research in that area. This is also true of data on the degree of acculturation 
of the group in that period, and the specifics of the material culture. 



27 



It is unfortunate that no Mattamuskeet estate inventories were found 

in the Hyde County Records, but these questions can, and hopefully will, 

be answered by archaeological research in the future. 

The final sale of the reservation in 1761 was the product of 
several factors. Population decline probably played a major role, as did 
the lack of adequate leadership. The population of the Mattamuskeet 
reservation had never been very large. Governor Burrington indicated that 
twenty families lived there in 1731 (Johnson 1972, 212), but that number 
had fallen to six families in 1761. Also, the individuals who made up 
the original leadership of the group had all died before the final land 
sale. As previously mentioned, John Squires apparently died in 1746. 
Long Tom, who acted as one of two advisors to John Squires, did not appear 
on any deed after 1746, and probably died around that time. John Mackey, 
who was probably the son of the John Mackey mentioned on the 1724 request 
to the Colonial Council for a formal survey of Mattamuskeet lands (Johnson 
1972, 212), did not appear on land deeds after 1755. John Mackey had 
served as the other advisor to John Squires, and had assumed a rather 
important role in land transactions after his death. The death of John 
Mackey appears to have removed the last obstacle to the sale of the reser- 
vation, since he was the last of the old leadership remaining on the 
reservation. 

There is some indication from the deeds that the Squires family 
began to break up after the death of John Squires. George Squires, son 
of John Squires, was listed as living in Tyrell County on deeds dated 1755 
and 1756 (see appendices 24 & 28) . George Squires returned to Hyde County 
in 1760, but the deeds leave the impression that he returned mainly to 
dispose of land. The Squires family evidently left the Mattamuskeet area 



28 



completely after the sale of the reservation, and were not mentioned 
in any type of document from the area after that time. 

The entire reservation, was sold to Thomas Jones, William Cummings, 
and Bartholomew Coin in 1761 for 100 Pounds Sterling. The deed transferred 
the reservation basically as described in the 1727 Land Grant, although 
a major part of the land had already been sold between 1731 and 1761. 
Certainly the most desirable land had been sold prior to 1761. The purchase 
price indicates that the 1761 buyers were aware of that factor. Six individuals 
signed the 1761 deed. They were probably the male heads of households 
remaining on the reservation. Those individuals were: Charles Squires, 
George Squires, Timothy Squires, James Tom, John Squires, and Joses Russell. 
James Tom was probably related to Long Tom. If so, the correct surname 
should have been Long Tom. Joses Russell appears to have been Joseph 
Russell Mackey. The Mackey surname still present in Hyde County was probably 
passed on through that individual (see appendix 33) . 

Little has survived in the records concerning the Mattamuskeets 
from 1761 to 1792. Rev. Alexander Stewart visited the Mattamuskeets in 
1761 and 1763, and left brief accounts of his visits. Stewart reported 
after his 1761 visit that the Mattamuskeets were residing with a few 
Roanoke and Hatteras Indians who had moved to their area. He notes the 
baptismal of two men, three women, and two children during that visit. 
Stewart established a school at Mattamuskeet when he returned in 1763. 
He baptised six adults and fifteen children at that time. Stewart remarked 
that the Indians at Mattamuskeet had mixed with whites, but did not in- 
dicate whether this mixture was residential or racial (Johnson 1972, 213). 



29 



THE POST RESERVATION PERIOD, 1761-1792 

The Mattamuskeets were', as indicated previously, joined by 
Indians from Roanoke and Hatteras Island by 1761. The names of these 
individuals were not identified on any of the extant deeds. This could 
mean the Indians from those areas moved to the Mattamuskeet area at a 
period earlier than that covered by the available records. Individuals 
with Mattamuskeet surnames do not occur in the Hyde County Records from 
1761 to 1792. In fact, there is reference to only a single Indian during 
that time. This reference appe"ared in the Hyde County Court Minutes of 
1765. It called for William Gibbs to show cause why an Indian woman named 
Cati Collins should not be set free. It is not clear from the reference 
whether William Gibbs was holding Cati Collins as an apprentice or a slave. 
The outcome of the show cause order could not be determined due to a 
break in the County Court Minutes from 1765 to 1767 (see appendix 35) . 
Cati Collins may have been a metSber of one of the groups that moved to 
the area from Roanoke and Hatteras Islands. 

This document is particularly significant since the Collins 
family's later history closely paralleled that of the individuals with 
Mattamuskeet surnames. Also, the Collins descendents now residing in 
Hyde County are thought to be at least partially of Indian descent. 

The only other reference to Indians in the area that could be 
located during this research was a notation in a book by David Stick 
(1958, 73). According to Stick, an Indian woman named Mary Elks sold the 
site of the Indian town of Hatteras to a white settler named Nathan Midyett 
in 1788. Individuals with the Elks surname do occur in the Hyde County 
Records as "free persons of color" during the nineteenth century. This 
surname has apparently disappeared from Hyde County. 



.:■ 



The last reference to the Indians at Mattamuskeet as a group was 
on a deed of sale dated 21 November, 1792 (see appendix 34) . According to 
this document, a group of seven Mattamuskeets sold the entire original 
reservation to a white resident named Hutchens Selby for 50 Pounds. It is 
quite obvious that the group sold land that they did not own, but the deed 
was accepted by the Hyde County Court, and was entered in the Hyde County 
Record of Deeds by the Registrar on 9 April, 1793. The description of 
the tract was essentially the same as given on the original Land Grant of 
1727, and the original grant was referenced by data in this deed. There is 
no subsequent mention of this deed in the Hyde County Records and it is 
evident that Hutchens Selby did not pursue his claim. 

The 1792 deed was signed by five females and two males. The 
position of the signatures of the two males on the deed and subsequent 
documents indicates that the two were children. One of the female signers 
also appears to have been a child. The four adults who signed the deed 
were: Patience McKey (Mackey) , Mary Longtom, Jean Longtom, and Marthey 
Longtom. The children were Tabithy and Timothy McKey (Mackey) and John 
Longtom. 

The absence of adult males on the 1792 deed is difficult to explain. 
It is possible that adult male heads of family were present and simply did 
not take part in the sale, but that does not appear to be very likely. It 
is more likely that the households were headed by females, and that the 
male-oriented nuclear family arrangement inferred on the earlier deeds had 
broken down. This impression is confirmed to a degree by supportive docu- 
ments for apprentice bonds drawn up in 1804 (see appendix 36) . A possible 
explanation for this situation is that the 1792 group reflected the end 
product of movement away from Hyde County by the Mattamuskeet descendents. 
The males in the group would have been a bit more mobile than the female 



31 



group members, since it would have been somewhat easier for them to make 
a living in the larger society of that day. Under this interpretation, 
at least some of the females in the group were simply left behind in this 
out-migration. whatever the reason, the 1792 deed pictures a group in the 
final stages of social disintegration. Thus, the tendency towards social 
breakdown noted in the later deeds from the 1731-1761 period had culminated 
in virtual disappearance of the group by 1792. The Mattamuskeet descendents 
still retained an awareness of their heritage in 1792. Even that would 
disappear in the century that followed. 



32 



THE MATTAMUSKEET DESCENDENTS IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY 

The trend towards the loss of group identity that characterized 
the descendents of the Indians of Mattamuskeet during the eighteenth century 
intensified during the century that followed. There is no doubt that vir- 
tually all traces of the Indian identity of the Mattamuskeet descendents 
were lost during the nineteenth century. The available archival material 
offers a rather clear explanation for that loss of identity, and perhaps 
the events evident from the documents also explain a similar loss of identity 
by other groups during the same time period. Two primary factors for 
the identity loss emerge from a study of the documents. The initial, 
and perhaps most important factor, was the disintegration of the nuclear 
family among the descendents. The second factor was a product of the un- 
stable times preceding the Civil War in North Carolina. This was the 
apprenticeship policy that sprang up in Hyde County from 1834-1865. That 
policy may have been an attempt by the white planters to neutralize the 
free nonwhite population. 

As previously noted, the last major document concerning the 
Mattamuskeet descendents in the eighteenth century presented a rather 
uncertain future for the descendents as a group. Supportive documents 
for apprentice requests entered in the Hyde County Records in 1804 (see 
appendix 36) offer other evidence of the social situation at that time. 
These documents were submitted by Captains Stephen Fletcher and Little 
John Pugh in an attempt to convince the court that the apprenticeships 
they proposed were in the public interest. Captain Fletcher proposed 
taking Joshua Longtom as an apprentice, and pointed out that Joshua Longtom 
was the illegitimate son of Jenny Longtom and an unknown white father. 
He stated that Joshua Longtom, aged ten, was "going at random with out 



33 



that control and nutrition So Essential to his own future good and that of 
the Community at large..." The supportive document stated that Jenny Longtom 
was an Indian. It is presumed that she was the Jane Longtom mentioned in 
the 1792 deed. The second supportive document, entered by Captain Little 
John Pugh, proposed the indenture of Jordan Longtom, aged 9. According 
to this document, Jordan and his brother, Price Longtom, were the illegiti- 
mate sons of an Indian woman named Mary Longtom and an unnamed black father. 
Mary Longtom was also listed on the 1792 deed, and may have been an 
indentured servant in her childhood. The supportive document declared 
that the father of the two boys did not consent to care for them, but 
desired that they be apprenticed. Joshua and Jordan Longtom were apprenticed 
to their respective masters in 1804, and were to be taught the trades of 
blacksmith and seaman. Two other Mattamuskeet descendents, Shadrach and 
Simpson Mackey, were bound to masters in that same year. Both were described 
as being illegitimate (see appendices 36 & 37). 

The 1804 apprentice bonds and supportive documents confirmed 
the impressions created by the 1792 deed. It is quite obvious that the 
family groups recorded in the documents were female centered and unstable. 
The available documents indicate that the nuclear family had completely 
broken down by 1804, and that some Mattamuskeet descendents could not even 
provide minimal care for their children. Surnames during this period were 
passed on from the mother, and a considerable amount of miscegenation 
apparently took place. The Mattamuskeet descendents were not mentioned in 
the Hyde County Records for thirty-two years following the 1804 apprentice 
bonds. Individuals with Mattamuskeet surnames were occasionally mentioned 
in the Federal Census Records of the intervening years. None of the 
records after 1804 referred to individuals with Mattamuskeet surnames as 



34 



Indians, but instead included them in the category "free persons of 
color." The Mattamuskeet descendents thus became part of a group that 
enjoyed a social status only slightly higher than slaves. Furthermore, 
the extant records of the early nineteenth century indicate that the Matta- 
muskeet descendents may have enjoyed low relative status within the "free 
persons of color" group. 

The "free persons of color" in Hyde County were largely ignored 
in official county records until the last thirty years before the Civil 
War. They did not own land, and >for the first time in the history of Hyde 
County, blacks and Indians were no longer being apprenticed because of their 
social status. The only apprentice bonds that appeared in the Hyde County 
records from 1804 to 1834 dealt with the apprenticeship of orphans. 
That situation changed dramatically during the 1830' s. The last thirty 
years before the Civil War were marked by social upheavals created by a 
series of slave uprisings in the southern states, and the growth of the 
abolitionist movement in both the North and the South. The famous Nat 
Turner Rebellion took place in southern Virginia in 1831. A much less 
serious "slave uprising" took place in Hyde County in the same year (see 
appendix 38). The Hyde County "slave uprising" took the form of a slave 
assaulting a white man. This event appears to have been the act of a 
single slave. The situation was made more serious by the later reports of 
an outside agitator in the form of one Rev. Thompson, who visited Hyde 
County in 1834 (see appendix 38) and supposedly encouraged slaves to rebel 
against their masters. These were rather trivial events, but in the 
context of their times were fully sufficient to arouse the fear and in- 
dignation of the Hyde County slave holders. Furthermore, the North 
Carolina General Assembly had stripped the "free persons of color" of most 



35 



of their rights by 1835 (Dial and Eliades, 1975, 39-41). The events 
that took place in Hyde County from 1834 to the Civil War must then be 
considered as products of their time and were in no measure unique to that 
county. 

The "free persons of color" were apparently viewed as potential 
allies to the slaves in Hyde County during this period. Also, it was 
apparently becoming more difficult to acquire new slaves. The Hyde County 
Records do not contain a formal statement of the rationale for what followed, 
but the records contain ample evidence that the children of "free persons 
of color" were apprenticed en masse from 1834 to 1865. A total of one 
hundred and thirteen "free persons of color" were apprenticed in Hyde 
County during that time. This represented a significant proportion of the 
potentially available children of this category. The 1850 Federal Census 
indicates that there was a total of 256 "free persons of color" in the 
county at that time. Two hundred and twenty-seven "free persons of color" 
were listed in Hyde County in the 1860 Federal Census. Most of the appren- 
ticeships were drawn up from the mid 1840 's to the mid 1850' s (see figure 3). 
It is probable that well over half of the children of the "free persons 
of color" became apprentices during this period. These children were as 
a rule apprenticed at an early age, and remained apprentices until their 
twenty-first year (see figure 4) . Most of the males apprenticed during 
this time were bound as farmers. The females were bound as seamstresses or 
house servants. Few of these children were taught specialized trades, 
and no provisions were made by their masters to teach them to read and 
write. The apprenticeship system, as implemented for the children of "free 
persons of color," offered the participants little in exchange for their 
labor. 



36 



Figure 3. Apprenticeships by Five Year Increments for "Free Persons of 
Color" in Hyde County from 1830-1864. 



45-, 
















44- 




43 - 




42- 








41 - 








40- 








39- 








38 - 








37 - 








36 - 








35 - 








34 -J 








33i 








32 - 
31 - 
















30 - 










29 - 










28 - 










27 - 
26 - 


i 
















25 - 










24 - 










23 - 










22 - 

21 - 
20 - 
19 - 




















18 - 












17 - 












16 - 












15 - 












14 - 
13 - 
12 - 


1 










1 1 












II - 
10 - 


1 















9 - 
















8 - 
















7 - 
















6 - 
















5 - 
4 • 
3 • 


] 














2 - 

| 
















1 






F830- 1834 


1835-1839 


1840-1844 


1845-1849' 


^850-1854 


1855-1859 


I860" 1864 



APPRENTICESHIPS BY FIVE YEAR INCREMENTS FOR "FREE PERSONS OF COLOR" IN HYDE COUNTY 
FROM 1830 ~ 1864 



38 



Figure 4. Ages of Initial Apprenticeship for Hyde County "Free Persons 
of Color" from 1834 through 1865. 



|N»" 



NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS 
ro at 4> ai o> ->i o> 
1 1 I I ■ 



«> 5 = 



l\> 



W 



— -fc> 



^ CJI 



OV 



OB 



(0 



fVJ 



CM 



CD 



0> 



00 



O 



40 



Children with surnames attributable to the Mattamuskeet were 
well represented among the apprentice bonds of this period. Twelve 
persons with the surname of Longtom, and twelve with the Mackey surname 
were apprenticed (see appendices 40 and 41) . Other families of probable 
Indian descent are also represented in the records. The Collins family 
was represented by apprentice bonds on ten different individuals. One 
member of the Elks family was apprenticed. The Barber family, which had 
at least partial Indian descent, was represented by eleven individuals, 
and the Chance family was represented by a single bond. It is probable 
that other "free persons of color" families were descended from Indians, 
but no level of proof exists to prove that supposition. 

The results of the unofficial apprenticeship were simple and direct. 
The Longtom family rapidly declined in number, and according to the 1870 
Federal Census, had totally disappeared from Hyde County by that year. 
There is no hint in the Hyde County Records concerning their fate, and as 
yet, no data has. been developed from other sources to explain their demise. 
It is probable that the Longtoms left Hyde County during this period, but 
it is certainly possible that this family lost its members to other causes. 
The Mackey family became dispersed over a wide area of the county. By 1870 
the Federal Census indicates that there were Mackeys living in Currituck 
Township in southwest Hyde County, as well as Fairfield Township on the 
western side of Lake Mattamuskeet (see appendix 44) . 

A more insidious result of this apprenticeship policy was 
the loss of Indian identity. Since many of the children of the Mattamuskeet 
descendents had been removed from their homes and families at a young age 
and placed under the care of whites, there was little opportunity for the 
older generation to pass on whatever elements remained of their Indian 
heritage. 



41 



There was little to distinguish the former "free persons of 
color" and the newly emancipated blacks in Hyde County following the 
Civil War. Although a few of the former "free persons of color" of 
Hyde County had received specialized training for skilled professions, 
most had not been taught professions that placed them in a position to 
successfully compete with the former slaves. Former slaves had been 
trained as farmers practically from birth. Their former masters were more 
likely to utilize them as tenant farmers because of that training and 
possibly because of a paternalistic interest in their welfare. The 
former "free persons of color" were thus placed in a disadvantageous 
position. They were, as a group, both illiterate and propertyless. 

All of the "free persons of color" had been classified as mulattos 
in the 1850 Federal Census, but were distinguished as blacks or mulattos in 
the following census. Marriages between "free persons of color" and slaves 
had been prohibited by North Carolina statutes well before the Civil War, 
but the "Unlawfull Negro Marriages" file in the Hyde County Records (see 
Appendix 39 for an example) indicate that mixture between the two groups 
was indeed taking place during this period. A study of the marriage records 
of the Mackey family of Hyde County indicates that mixture between these 
Mattamuskeet descendents and blacks increased tremendously following 
the Civil War. A family of black Mackeys moved to Hyde County from South 
Carolina following the Civil War (Hyde County Marriage Records and Personal 
Interviews with Napoleon Mackey and Janey B. Mackey). This represented 
the first instance in which a family with the surname of Mackey who were not 
Mattamuskeets had resided in Hyde County. Their presence obscured the 
relationship of the contemporary Mackeys with the Mattamuskeets of that 
surname. These relationships were further obscured by the fact that the two 



42 



Mackey families intermarried rather freely (Hyde County Records, Marriage 
Bonds) . The same course of events took place in regards to the other 
families in Hyde County who were of at least partial Indian descent, and 
culminated in a complete loss of any Indian identity among most of those 
families. 

One family of Mac keys has retained firm knowledge of their 
partial Indian descent, although they have no awareness of the group 
identity of their Indian ancestors. The contemporary spokesman for this 
family is Napoleon "Poley" Mackey who resides in Fairfield, North Carolina. 
Napoleon Mackey traces his Indian descent to his great-grandfather, 
Benjamin Mackey, who was supposedly a "pure-blooded" Indian. The Hyde 
County Records do offer data concerning Benjamin Mackey and his household 
in the nineteenth century. Benjamin Mackey was born, presumably in Hyde 
County, between 1825 and 1830 (See appendices 43 and 44). He married Mary 
Jane Barber of Hyde County in 1853 (Hyde County Marriage Records). Mary 
Jane Barber was apparently the daughter of Bartie and Morena Barber (Federal 
Census, 1850) and was about fifteen years old at the time of her marriage. 
Miss Dessie Barber, granddaughter of Benjamin and Mary Jane Mackey, has 
stated that Mary Jane Mackey 's mother was white, but this was not indicated 
in the available records (Miss Dessie Barber, 1975). Benjamin and Mary Jane 
Mackey had two sons and three daughters aged one to seven years by 1860 
(Federal Census, 1360), but the 1870 census listed only two daughters 
remaining in the household (Federal Census, 1870). Napoleon Mackey's 
grandmother was Clarissa Mackey and his grandfather was Washington Hearse. 
Nothing could be determined from the Hyde County Records concerning Washington 
Hearse. Napoleon Mackey's parents were Benjamin J. Mackey and Laura Lu Mackey. 
Laura Lu Mackey was the daughter of Henry Barber and Hettie Mackey (Hyde 
County Marriage Records). Napoleon Mackey married Geneva Burrus in 1921. 



43 



His wife apparently has no claim to Indian ancestry. Napoleon Mackey, 
when interviewed in 1975, asserted his knowledge of his Indian ancestry, 
and named several other Hyde County families which he believed could also 
claim at least partial Indian descent. Prominant among those were the 
Collins, Barber, Chance, Clayton and Bryant families (Napoleon Mackey 1975). 

It is significant that Benjamin Mackey passed on some knowledge 
of his Indian ancestry to his descendents. Benjamin Mackey was never 
apprenticed, and was apparently able to go through a type of enculturation 
denied to many of his relatives. Benjamin Mackey' s work history apparently 
varied little from the other Indian descendents. Benjamin Mackey began his 
work career as a laborer, and worked as a logger in the swamps around 
Fairfield, North Carolina. Later he became a tenant farmer, and worked 
land near Fairfield that belonged to a Mr. Cotter. He died around the turn 
of the century (Mackey 1975). 

It may already be too late to gather much in the way of oral 
history from the Mattamuskeet descendents. The trend among those families 
since the Civil War towards increased mixture with black families, as well 
as the apprenticeship policy in the early nineteenth century has effectively 
destroyed all but a very dim awareness of their "Indianess." It is un- 
fortunate that Frank Speck did not visit Hyde County when he came to North 
Carolina in search of descendents of the Machapunga Indians in 1916. His 
search took him instead to Roanoke Island in Dare County where he reported 
the existence of four families which claimed Indian descent. The surnames 
mentioned by Speck were Pugh , Daniels, Berry, and Wescott. Speck claimed 
that the individuals he met traced their ancestry to Israel Pierce, who had 
lived near the Pungo River west of Lake Mattamuskeet in Hyde County. 
Speck further remarked that no vestige of their Indian culture remained, 
and that they did not know to what tribe their ancestors had belonged 



44 



(Speck 1916, 272). Speck did assert that those individuals were 
descendents of the Machapunga tribe, but offered no proof to substan- 
tiate his claim (Speck 1916, 272). 



45 



SUMMARY 

The history of the Mattamuskeets and their descendents may be 
typical of small fragmented triracial groups in other areas of the eastern 
United States. The Mattamuskeets lost their land very early. The key to 
that loss evidently was a combination of small group size and lack of 
adequate leadership. These factors were probably compounded by pressure 
from white settlers, and the ready market for land that those settlers 
provided. 

The population of the Mattamuskeets was augmented by the addition 
of a few of the surviving Indians from Hatteras and Roanoke Island in the 
mid-eighteenth century, but the group that resulted lacked cohesiveness 
and property. 

The Mattamuskeets and their descendents were not represented in 
the Hyde County Records during period in which they owned little or nothing 
of value that was desirable to the whites. The Indians of Hyde County 
never held public office and were not even represented on the tax lists. 
Therefore, little was preserved in the records concerning the Indians 
from the time they sold their reservation in 1761 until they sold it again 
in 1792. It is quite evident from the available material that the Hyde 
County Indians declined in both population and social cohesiveness during 
the second half of the eighteenth century. It is unlikely that much of 
their original Indian culture survived to 1800. There is ample evidence 
that this trend continued into the nineteenth century, and was accelerated 
through mixture with both whites and blacks. The Mattamuskeet descendents 
were not referred to as Indians after 1804, and were generally grouped with 
the free blacks in Hyde County under the title of "free persons of color." 



46 



The policy of mass apprenticeships of the children of "free 
persons of color" in Hyde County from 1834 to 1865 undoubtedly destroyed 
what vestiges of Indian culture remained among the Mattamuskeet descendents. 
This effect culminated in the almost total lack of Indian identity evidenced 
by the contemporary Mattamuskeet descendents in Hyde County. 

Indians in the eastern United States who have retained their 
identity as Indians had histories that were significantly different from the 
Mattamuskeet descendents. The Pamunkey and Mattaponi of Virginia, as 
examples, both retained at least portions of their reservations and much 
higher populations than the Mattamuskeets(see Garrow 1974), Other groups, 
such as the Lumbees of Robeson County, North Carolina, although lacking 
knowledge of their origins, retained well developed knowledge of their 
Indian ancestry. The Lumbees never had a reservation, but do have a very 
large population (see Dial and Eliades 1975 for a good account of the 
Lumbees and their history) . 

The major methodological hypothesis presented in this paper has 
been proven for the Mattamuskeet example. It was obviously possible in the 
case of the Mattamuskeet to begin with an historically documented group, 
research county records, and eventually identify comtemporary descendents 
where none were previously known. The general applicability of this 
methodology remains untested. Future research projects of this type will 
have to be done on other North Carolina groups to determine whether or not 
this technique can be projected beyond the boundaries of the Mattamuskeet. 

The working hypothesis that it is possible to extract particular 
social data from documents that were not designed to reflect that data could 
not be adequately tested in this paper. Supportive evidence from archaeolo- 
gical research must be developed in order to validate that hypothesis for 



47 



the Mattamuskeet example. Well planned and implemented archaeological 
research could certainly provide insights into the settlement pattern, 
population, social change, and perhaps even the kinship patterns of the 
Mattamuskeet. Hopefully this paper will provide the needed impetus for 
that archaeological research. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 



48 



Anonymous 
1968 



Anonymous 
1969 



Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge . U.S. Department 
of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Services. Bureau 
of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. Washington. 



Expanded Contract for Management Investigations of Lake 
Mattamuskeet. North Carolina State University. Raleigh. 



Anonymous 
1972 



General Soils Map Hyde County, North Carolina . United 
States Department of Agriculture. Soil Conservation 
Service. Raleigh. 



Anonymous 
1975 



Draft Environmental Statement: Proposed Wildlife 
Enhancement Project Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 
Hyde County, North Carolina . U.S. Department of the 
Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington. 



Ballance, Leon 
1975 



Author's Interview. 4 September. 1975. Nebraska. North 
Carolina. 



Barber, Dessie 
1975 



Author's Interview. 1 September. 1975. Lake Landing. 
North Carolina. Notes on File with the Archaeology 
Section. North Carolina Division of Archives and History. 



Cummings, William P. 

1966 North Carolina in Maps , State Department of Archives 

and History. Raleigh. 



Dial, Adolph L. and Eliades, David K. 

1975 The Only Land I Know: A History of the Lumbee Indians , 

The Indian Historian Press. San Francisco. 



Garrow, Patrick H. 

1974 An Ethnohistorical Study of the Powhatan Tribes. 

The Chesopieano Volume 12. Numbers 1-2. Norfolk,, 



49 



Haag, William C. 

1958 The Archaeology of Coastal North Carolina . Louisiana 

State University Press. Baton Rouge. 



Johnson, F. Roy 

1968 The Tuscaroras . Volume 2. Johnson Printing Company. 

Murf reesboro. 
1972 The Algonquians . Volume 2. Johnson Printing Company, 

Murf reesboro. 

Lee, E. Lawrence, Jr. 

1968 Indian Wars in North Carolina 1663-1763. Carolina Charter 



Tercentenary Commission. Raleigh. 



Mackey, Janey B. 
1975 



Author's Interview. 1 September. 1975. Lake Landing. 
North Carolina. Notes on File with the Archaeology 
Section. North Carolina Division of Archives and History. 
Raleigh. 



Mackey, Napoleon E. 

1975 Author's Interview. 2 September. 1975. Fairfield. North 

Carolina. Tape on File with the Archaeology Section. 
North Carolina Division of Archives and History. Raleigh. 



Mook, Maurice A. 

1944 Algonkian Ethnohistory of the Carolina Sound. Journal 

of the Washington Academy of Sciences. Volume 34. Number 6. 
pp. 181-197. Washington. 



Speck, Frank G. 
1916 



Remnants of the Machapunga Indians in North Carolina. 
American Anthropologist. Volume 18. pp. 271-276. Menasha. 



Stick, David 
1958 



The Outer Banks of North Carolina, 1584-1958 . The 
University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill. 



Wilson, Kenneth A. 

1962 North Carolina Wetlands Their Distribution and Management , 

Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Project W-6-R. 
North Carolina Wildlife Commission. Raleigh. 



50 



ARCHIVAL SOURCES 



Albemarle County Records 



Albemarle County Papers „ Volume 1. Folio 56, Raleigh. 



Beaufort County Records 



Beaufort County Wills. Raleigh. 

Beaufort County Record of Deeds. 1697-1729. 



Raleigh. 



Hyde County Records 



Raleigh. 



Hyde County Record of Deeds. Volume A. Parts I and II. 

Raleigh. 
Hyde County Record of Deeds. Volume B. 
Hyde County Record of Deeds. Volume C. 
Hyde County Record of Deeds, Volume D. 
Hyde County Record of Deeds. Volume H, 
Hyde County Record of Deeds. Volume I. 
Hyde County Record of Deeds. Volume I. 
Hyde County Court Minutes. 1764-1791, 



Part II. 
Raleigh. 

and E. Swan Quarter. 
Swan Quarter. 
Swan Quarter. 
Swan Quarter. 
Raleigh. 



Hyde County Court Minutes. 1797-1806. Raleigh. 

Hyde County Apprentice Papers, 1771-1849. Raleigh. 

Hyde County Apprentice Papers. 1850-1892. Raleigh. 

Hyde County Miscellaneous Records. Unlawful Negro Marriages. 

1843. Raleigh. 
Hyde County Miscellaneous Records. Slave Uprising. 

1831-1834. Raleigh. 
Hyde County Marriage Records. Swan Quarter. 
Seventh Census of the United States. North Carolina. 

1850. Volume XV. The Counties of Hertford and 

Hyde. Raleigh. 
Eighth Census of the United States. North Carolina. 

1860. Volume XXI. The Counties of Hertford and 

Hyde. Raleigh. 
Ninth Census of the United States. North Carolina. 1870. 

Volume XXV. The Counties of Hyde-Iredell. Raleigh. 



Land Grant Library 



North Carolina Secretary of State Office. Land Grant 
Library, File #404. Raleigh. 



51 



Appendix 1 

John Squire's Will; 20 July 1723: Beaufort County Wills. 

North Carolina 

In the name of God Amen 
I John Squire of the precinct of Hyde being of sound mind & perfect 
memory, praise be therefore given to Almighty God, & calling to mind 
the uncertainty of this present life, do make & ordain this my present 
last will and testament in manner & form following (viz) first and 
principally I commend my soul into the hands of the Almighty God, 
hoping merits, death & passion of my Lord & Saviour Jesus Christ 
to receive full & free pardon & forgiveness of all my sins, and to 
inherit eternal life, and my body I commit to the earth to be intered 
at the discretion of my Executrix hereinafter named and as to making 
such small temporal Estate as it hath pleased God to bestow upon me 
I do give and bequeath the same wholly and absolutely unto my beloved 
wife Mary Squire whome I do appoint sole Executrix to this my said 
last will & testament and I do hereby revoke, , & utterly make 
void all former wills, testaments, bequests, gifts, or legacies by 
me at any time heretofore made. 

In witness whereof I have hereunto affixed & set my hand & seal 
the twentieth day of July Ano. Dom. 1723 

his 
Signed sealed probated John X Squire seal 

and in presence of mark 

T. White 
Benjamin Hallowell 

Appendix 2 



Complete Deed Reference; 20 July, 1717: Beaufort County Record of 
Deeds, 1697-1729. 

Know all men by these Presents that I John Squires for and in 
Consideration of the sum of seven Pounds to me in hand paid, the 
receipt whereof I do acknowledge, do make over all my right; title 
and interest of the within mentioned tract of land (labour excepted) 
unto Richard Jasper, his heirs and assigns forever; as witness my 
hand this 20 day of July 1717 

Test sign 

Jno Tillington John Esquires 

Jno Drinkwater 



Appendix 3 



52 



Complete Document; 1 April, 1727: North Carolina Secretary of State 
Office, Land Grant Library, File #404. 

Know Ye that we do hereby Give & Grant unto King Squiere and the rest of 

the Indians commonly called the Mattamuskeet Indians, a tract of Land 

containing by Estimation 10,240 Acres lying at Mattamuskeet on pamplico 

sound Beginning at the Mouth of old Mattamuskeet creek runing up that 

creek, and the Northernmost Branch of it to the head thereof, thence to 

the Lake S°W S (gap) pole, then along the Lake Southerly to 

o s 
Matchapungo Bluff woods, thence N E to pamplico sound, thence along 



pamplico sound to the first Station - To Have and To Hold Given 
first day of April 1727-Witness R. Everard, W. Reed, C, Gale, 
I. Lovick, E. Moseley, F. Foster, E. Gale, I. Worley 



this 



Appendix 4 



Complete Document; 1 April, 1727: North Carolina Secretary of State 
Office, Land Grant Library, File 76. 

His Excellency John Lord Carteret Palatine, and the rest of the true and 
absolute Lords Proprietors of Carolina, to persons to whome these presents 
shall come Greeting in our Lord God Everlasting- Know ye that we the said 
Lords and absolute proprietors, for and in consideration of the Sum of 
two Buck Skins in hand paid to our Resever General by King Squieres and 
the rest of the Indians, commonly called the Mattamuskeet Indians, we 
hereby Give, Grant, Sell, alien, enfeoff and confirm unto the said Squieres, 
and, and the rest of the Indians commonly called the Mattamuskeet Indians, 
a tract of Land lying and being at Mattamuskeet on Pamplycoe sound, 
containing by Estimation, Ten Thousand two hundred and forty acres 
Beginning at the Mouth of old Mattamuskeet creek, runing up that creek and 
the Northern most branch of it to the head thereof, thence to the Lake 
S°W^ (gap) p.ole, then along the Lake Southerly to Matchapungo Bluff 
woods, then N°E S to Pamlicoe sound, from thence along Pamlicoe sound to 
the first Station — To Have and to Hold the said Land, with all rights 
and Priviledges of Hunting, Hacoking, Fishing and Fowling, with all woods, 
waters and rivers, with all profits and commoditys and Hereditaments to 
the same Belonging or appertaining, Except one half of all Gold and 
Silver Mines unto him the said King Squieres and Mattamuskeet Indians 
his Heirs and Assigns forever, Yielding and paying unto us and our Heirs 
and Successors Yearly, every 29th day of September the fee rent of 
one Shilling, for every hundred acres Hereby Granted to be Holden of 
us our Heirs and Successors, in free and Common Sochage Given under the 
Seal of the Colloney, the first day of April, one Thousand seven hundred 
and twenty seven 



Witness 
Witness our Trusty and w£ll Beloved Sir Richd. Everard, Baron. Governor, 
and the rest of our Trusty and well Beloved Councellors who have here- 
unto set their Hands — 



53 



C. Gale 
I. Worley 
Edm? Gale 



Tho„ Harvey 
Francis Forster 
E. Mosely 
I. Lovick 



Rich. Everard 
W? Reed 



Appendix 5 

Deed Abstract; 27 September, 1731: 
Vol H, pp. 96-97. 



Hyde County Record of Deeds. 



tr 



This Indenture made this 27 day of Sep 1 "' In ye year of our Lord god 
one Thousand Seven Hundred and thirty one and In ye third year of ye 
Reign of our Sovering Lord George ye Second. . .between John Squirs King 
of ye Arromuskeet Indians with the advice & consent of John Makey & 
Long Tom In the Precinct of Currituck & The County Arelbermerle & In 
ye Province of North Carolina. . .and Henry Gibbs of ye precinct and 
County & province above said. . for and inconsideration of the Sum of 
Tenn pounds good Lawfull money of the province Province of North Carolina, 
a tract of Land situated Lying and being In ye province of North Carolina 
on ye South West Side_ of New Aromuskeet Creek Commonly known by ye name 
of l_gap in deed__l Containing by Estimation Six hundred & forty acres 
be ye Same more or Less begining_at ye head of ye Said Creek a Southerly 
Course to ye head of 1 gap 1 Creek between ye said Hen gibbs y 
L d John Squirs King... every of Rights and members and appurtainances 
what soever to geather with all houses orchards gardens fences woods 
waters high ground Sivaners y marshes and others lawfull money of 
North Carolina to be paid on demand on ye nonperformence of this 
present Righting of Endenture... 



Signed Sealed and delivered 
in presents of us 

John Selby 
his 
William Spencer 
mark 



his 
John Squirss Seal 

mark 

his 
John Mackey Seal 

mark 
his 
Long Tom Seal 

mark 



Note: Long Tom did not 
make his mark, P.G. 



54 



Appendix 6 



Deed Abstract; 16 January, 1738: Hyde County Record of Deeds. 
Vols A, Part I, pp. 190-191 

This Deed indentured and made the 16th of January 1738 Between John 
Squirs King of the Arromeskeet Indians... and David Jones of the other 
party... for and in Consideration of the Sum of twenty pounds Current 
Money of north Carolina... a certain tract or parcel of Land Containing 
three hundred acres Lying and Being in the South Side of Rattle Snake 
Hammuck Creek & binding on the other Side with the land of the Said 
Jones on the other Side to be the same more or Less... with all 
apportanince. . „ . 

In the Presents of us 

John Squirs 
Bell 
Samuel Selby S 



Appendix 7 



Deed Abstract; 3 April 1739: Hyde County Record of Deeds, 
Vol I, pp. 239-240. 

North Carolina: To all to whome these presents shall Come, Know ye, 
that we John Squirs King of Mattamoskeet Indians & Charles Eden for an 
In Consideration of the Sum of Twelve pounds Virginia Money to us in 
hand paid by Morris Jones... a Certain parcel of Land by Estimation 
One Hundred Acres more or less y bounded as followeth from the head 
of Cedar Creek to the head of the Lone Creek Runing a South East Coses 
together all houses Orchards fenses y all other Appertances. . .this 
3rd day Ap year of our Lord 1739. 

his 
Sealed y delivered John Squirs 

in presents of Us. mark 

his 
T. Lowther Charles Eden 



mark 



Sam- Simmons 



Note: this was copied from the Currituck Co. records & entered in 
the Hyde Co. Records in 1793 



55 



Appendix 8 



Deed Abstract; 4 April, 1739: Hyde County Record of Deeds, Vol D & E, p. 192. 

To all Christian People to whom these presents Shall Come Know ye that I 
John Squires King of Mattamaskeet and Charles Eden of the County of 
Currituck and province of North Carolina for and in Consideration of the 
sum of Fifty pounds Current money of Great Britton to me in hand paid... 
by David Jones of the precit and province of North Carolina... a certain 
parcel of Land lying at Mattamaskeet Butted and bounded as follows 
beginning at a small gut Binding upon Samuel Stow running up the main 
Creek to a small creek called Strahan running up to the head from thence 
to a small l_gap_l Containing two hundred and fifty acres more or 
less... with all appurtenances. .. this forth Day of April 1739. 



Test 

Currituck) 
County ) 



Niclas Lund 
Samuel Stow 



his 
John Squires Seal 
mark 
his 
Charles Eden Seal 
mark 



Appendix 9 



Deed Abstract; 2 July. 
Part II, pp. 710-711. 



1739: Hyde County Record of Deeds, Vol. B, 



This Indenture made this Second Day of July in ye year of our Lord God 
one Thousand Seven hundred and Tharty nine. . .Between us John Squiers 
King of arormeskeet Indians With the advice and Consent of John Mackey 
and Long Tomb in ye County of Curituck and in ye province of North 
Carolina. . .and henry gibbs of ye County and province above S of ye 
other party... for and in consideration of ye Sum of Twenty pounds of 
good and Lawfull money of ye S Province. . .above Said Gibbs planter... 
a tract of Land Situated Lieing and being In ye afores on ye Sowth 
west Side of old arormosskeet Creek Beginning at the head of Long Creek 
and Runing a west Course three hundred and twenty perches and from thence 
running a North Course three hundred and twenty perches to ye head of ye 
main Creek and Running Toward the S Creek to ye mouth of the Said Creek 
and from thence to ye first Station ye River Sions (?) and Remainder... 
with these and Every Right and members and apertainance what so ever 
together with all hoses orchards Gardens fences Woods waters high ground 
Survanias and marshes and all other appertainances. . . . 



Signed Sealed and Delivered 
In the Presents of us 

John Taylor 

his 
James Baker 
Mark 



his 
John Squirs 
mark 



Note: registered in Currituck Co. 
4 Oct. 1739; registered Hyde Co. 
3 March 1778, P. G. 



56 



Appendix 10 

Deed Abstract; 2 July 1739: Hyde County Record of Deeds, Vol. H, pp 95-96. 

This Indenture made This second day of July in ye year of our Lord god 
on Thousand seven hundred and thirty nine.., by us John Squirs King of 
the Aromuskeet Indians with ye Advice of and Consent of John Mckey & 
Long Tom in ye County of Currituck and in the province of North Carolina 
the on party and Henry Gibbs of ye County and province above s of ye 
other party... for and in Consideration of Twenty pounds proclamation 
money of North Carolina. , „ on Track of Land Situated Lying and being in 
ye province and County aforesaid, begining at ye mouth of a little Creek 
going out of ye main Creek Called by ye name of Spencers or Midle Creek 
Runing S°67 w' 80 pole to great gum in the swamp from ye s d gum North 
45W to a nother great gum y n East down ye Creek 655 perches to ye first 
Station being for 444 Acres of Land ye Reversions and Reminders of all 
and singular of ye afore said granted premises. . .and appertainances 
whatsoever. . . . 

Signed Sealed and Delivered his 

In presents of John Squires 

mark 
John Taylor 

his 
James Baker 
mark 



North Carolina) 

Currituck Co. ) essence of this entry is that John Squires acknowledged 

receiving felOO Current Money, not L20 for the property. P.G. 

This deed was validated and registered in Currituck Co. on 4 Oct. 1739 
& copied in Hyde Co. book H in 1789, P.G, 

Appendix 1 1 

Deed Abstract; 16 July, 1742: Hyde Co. Deeds Volume C, pp. 307-308. (This 
deed book is 1787-1789: The deed was evidently misfiled.) 

North Carolina) To all to whom these presents Shall 
Hyde County ) Come I John Squires King of the 
Arromuskeet Indians of the County and Province 
Aforesaid Sendeth Greeting. 

Know ye that I the said John Squires aforesaid 
for and in Consideration of the Sum of one hundred pounds Current money 
of this Province to me in hand paid before the ensealing and Delivery of 
these presents by Francis Credle of the Province of Virginia and County 
of Norfolk planter.., a Certain parcel of Land and marsh lying and being 
in in new arromuskeet in the County of Currituck afore Said Containing 
one hundred and fifty acres and thus Bounded (vis) Beginning at a 
Small Gutt Runing out of the main Creek to down the main creek fifty three 



57 



perches to a post in the mouth then Runing South west three hundred 
and twenty perches to a gum a corner tree then west north west to 
Henry Gibbs Junior line So along the Said line to the first Station 
with all Woods orchards Gardens and fences together with all profits 
Comoditys and hereditaments unto the Same belonging or in wise appur- 
taining the Same being the plantation whereon I the Said John Squires 
do now reside. .. this Sixteenth day of July one thousand Seven Hundred 
& forty two. 

his 
Signed Sealed & Delivered) John Squires 

of this the ) mark 

William Credle 



Appendix 12 

Deed Abstract; 22 April 1746: Hyde County Deeds, Vol. A, Part I, pp. 213-216, 

...twenty second day of April. . .seventeen hundred & forty six between 
Longtom & Charles Squirs of Hyde County in North Carolina Indians Casson 
Brinson of onslow County. . „ said Long Tom & Charles Squirs & the Rest of 
the Indians. . .six Pounds Virginia Currency... a Certain tract or parcel of 
Land & Plantation Containing sixty five Acres. . .lying on the Indian Ridge 
at Arromasket lying between Wm Creedles Land & Henry Gibbs Land which 
Land is Known by the name of Long toms rice patch & begins (unintelligible) 
in the edge of the Lake & Runing along the said Creedles Line one the 
one side and another side along a Line of marked trees made by Charles 
Squirs by the order of his father John Squirs King of said Indians 
which Land is part of ten thousand two hundred and forty Acres by 
Estimation granted to said Indians by Patent in the time Proprietors 
owning the Province and now Transfered & made over to said Brinson by 
said Indians as by Deed appears to have and to hold the said Plantation 
tract or parcel of Land together with all and Singular the houses out 
houses yards Gardens Barns Stables orchards fields meadows fences with 
all woods waters and Rivers with all (unintelligible) & all other ye 
Premisses & appurtenances.... 

witnesses signed 

Samuel Selby Junior his 

Samuel Selby, Senior Long Tom 

mark 
his 
Registrar-Jos. Tart John Mackey 

mark 
his 
George Squirs 
mark 

note: no seals 



58 



Appendix 13 



Deed Abstract; 20 August 1746: Hyde County Deeds, Vol. A., Part I, 
pp. 216 - 218. 

..„ I George Squirs with the Consent of all the Arromasket Indians.., 
of one hundred pounds current money of the Province. . .presents by 
Samuel Selby Sen of the County & Province. . .Parcel of Land situate 
lying and being on the So west side of Wiasaken Creek containing by 
Estimation fifty acres be the same more or less and bounded as follows 
with beginning at the mouth of Curduging gut or Branch so Running 
along Thomas Robbs Line that was formerly so to a small pine then 
along Indians neck line down to the Creek and so up the Creek to the 
first Station for fifty acres more or less... with all the Right members 
priviledges appurtenances. . .here of I am the true and Lawfull owner 
of the said Bargained premisses and Lawfully seized possessed hereof 
as a good and perfect Estate of Inheritance and have in myself good 
Rightfull power and Lawfull authority to grant and convey the same... 
twenty day of August in the year of our God one thousand seven hundred 
and forty six. . . 

witnesses signed 

James Mcintosh his 

Samuel Selby Jun r George Squirs seal 

mark 
Registrar-Jos. Tart 



Appendix 14 

Deed Abstract; 14 May 1747: Hyde County Deeds, Vol. A, Part I, op. 246-247. 

...fourteenth day of May in the year of our Lord one thousand seven 
hundred and forty seven... by me John Mackey and Joseph Rusel heirs to 
the said Land of Arromaskeet Given by the Governor and Council to John 
Squirs and John Mackey. . .Mor ice Jones of the said Province and County of 
Hyde aforesaid of the other party,,., the said John Mackey for and in 
consideration of fifty pounds current money of the said Province... 
all that parcel of Land lying and being upon the second Creek of hogil 
and containing two hundred Acres more or less lying and being in the 
County and Province aforesaid up the same from the head of the Creek A 
Cross the same Land a West Course and from thence Northerly upon the 
Back of the same containing two hundred Acres more or less.... 

witnesses signed in order 

Thos Jones his 

his John Mackey 

Amos Pasons mark 

mark his 

Joseph Rusel 
Registrar Jos. Tart mark 

his 
Joshua Squirs 
mark 



59 



Appendix 15 



Deed Abstract; 24 February, 1747/8: Hyde County Record of Deeds, 
Vol. A, Part I, pp. 343-345. 

This Indenture made the twenty fourth day of February and in the year 
of Our Lord one thousand Seven hundred and fourty Seven Eight... by 
me Charles Squires King of the Arromoskeet Indians with the advise 
and Consent of the other Indians in the County of Hyde in Province 
of North Carolina the one party and Waterman Emerry of the Said County 
and province of the other party... for and in Consideration of fifty 
pounds Currant Money of North Carolina... one tract of Land Situated 
lying and being in the Province and County aforesaid Begining at the 
head of James Bakes line at a marked gum runing N. W. half a Mile to a 
poplar from thence S° to the head of Morriss Jones Line and all the 

Land Mars. Survanars within the Said bounds being three Hundred 
acres... with their and every Right and member and Appurtanances what- 
soever together with all houses Orchards Gardines finces Woods waters 
high Ground Survanars Marshes and all other appurtanances.... 

Signed Sealed and Delivered in his 

presents of us Charles Squires 

mark 
J. Davisson 
John Ree 



Appendix 16 



Deed Abstract; 25 February, 1748/9: Hyde County Deeds, Vol. A, 
Part I, pp. 321-322. 

North Carolina 
Hyde County 

..ol John Mackea of the County and province Planter for and in 
Consideration of forty pounds Current Money of North Carolina. . .the 
said Joseph Russell Mackea... by these presents. . .one Certain piece or 
parcle of Land Situate and Lying in Wissocking Containing by Estimation 
one hundred Acres More or less and bounded as followeth Beginning at a 
gut that Runs out of the Creek by Said Mackeas Orchard on the South Side 
and so Runing a North Course to Sam Selby's line to have and to hold... 
with all the Appurtanances, priviledges and Commodities. . .1 am the 
true Sole and Lawfull owner of the above Bargained premises as Perfect 
Estate of Inheritance.... 

February the 25th day of 1748/9 

his 
In the presents of John Makey Seal 

George Turner mark 

Samuell Silby Jn r 



60 



Appendix 17 

Deed Abstract; 3 March 1748: 
Part I, pp. 312-314. 



Hyde County Record of Deeds, Vol. A, 



North Carolina) To all People to whome these Presents Shall come Greeting 
Hyde County ) Know ye that I John Mackea of the County and province 
aforesaid planter for and In consideration of forty pounds Current Money 
of North Carolina... Unto him the said Sam Selby... on Certain piece 
or parcil of Land Situate and Lying in Wissocken by estimation fifty 
Acres more or less and bounded As followeth. Begining at the Mouth of a 
gut on the South side of Wissocken Creek then runing with a line made by 
George Squires and John Mackea Runing a South East half a mile then runing 
a West Course to the head of a line of Tho s Roobs then runing with the 
said Roobs line to the Main Creek to the first station. . .with all appurta- 
nances priviledges and Commadation to the same belonging. .. I am the true 
sole and Lawfull owner of the above Bargained premisses as perfect Estate 
of Interitance. . .as witness my hand and Seal this third day of March 1748. 



Signed Sealed and Delivered 
In the presents of us 

Sam el Selby Jun r 
William Selby 



his 
John Ma eke 
mark 



Seal 



Appendix 18 

Deed Abstract; 19 June, 1749: Hyde County Deeds, Vol. A, Part I, pp. 333-335, 

This Indenture made this Nineteenth day of June in the year of Our Lord 
God One Thousand Seven Hundred and forty Nine and in the twenty first 
Year of the Reign of Our Majesty George the Second.... By us Charles Squires 
Proprietor of Arromuskeet in the County of Hyde in Province of North 
Carolina Afos of the one part and John Carriwon of the County and Province 
aforesaid. . .for and in Consideration of One hundred pounds Current Money 
of North Carolina... a piece of Land Situate Lying and being in the Province 
and County Aforesiad Begining at a Mulberry on the South Side of Arromuskeet 
Lake Joining Upon Mosses Prescott's Land. Runing west along the said 
Lake to Marked poplar tree from thence runing Out South half a Mile to a 
mark Maple tree from thence runing East to Gum tree Marked Operset to the 
first Station then Runing North to the first Station Marked Mulberry tree 
being One hundred and fifty Acres be it more or less of Land. . .together 
with all houses Orchards & Gardens fences Wood & waters high Ground 
Survaners and Marshes.... 



Signed Sealed and 
Delivered in presents of 
Us 



his 
Char. Squires 
mark 



John Lockhart 

Waitman Emary 
mark 



61 



Appendix 19 



Deed Abstract; 21 June 1749: Hyde County Deeds, Vol. A, Part I, pp. 277-278. 

...twenty first day of June in the year of Our Lord one thousand Seven 
Hundred and forty Nine by and between Charles Squires King of the Arro- 
meskeet Engans...and David Jones of the said province and County of Hyde... 
the Sum of fifty po Current Money of the province,., all that parcel of 
Land lying and being on the north Side of Strawhorns Creek begining at 
the Gum branch and from thence up the Creek to the Cyprus Swamp and from 
thence Est No weast up the Said Swamp to contain five hundred acres lying 
and being in the County and Province Aforesaid... with every Right title 
member and Appurtenance whatsoever.... 

witnesses signed in order 

his 
Thomas Jones Charles Squires Seal 

David Jones mark 

his 
Joshua Squires Seal 
mark 

John Mackey . . . 

Registrar R Seirmont 



Appendix 20 

Deed Abstract; 30 June, 1749: Hyde County Record of Deeds, Vol. A, 
Part I, pp. 346-348. 

This Indenture made This Thirtyeth day of June in the year of our Lord 
God one Thousand Seven Hundred and fourty Nine and in the twenty second 
year of Our Majestys Reign George the Second... By us Charles Squires and 
John Mackkey and with the advice and Consent of all the Arromoskeet Indians 
in the County of Hyde and in the Province of North Carolina the one party 
and Samuel Stow of the County and Province above Mentioned of the other party. 
Witnesseth that we the Aforesaid Charles Squires and John Mackey for and 
In Consideration of the Sum of one hundred and ten pounds Current money of 
North Carolina. . .one tract or parcel of Marsh Situated on the East Side and 
at the Mouth of Wusacken Creek Begining at a Cedar post at the head of the 
lone tree Creek Runing with David Jones line to the head of Sedar Bush Bay 
and then from thence Runing Sundry course with the sound Round Complying 
with all the Marsh and Land from the Aforesaid David Jones line so Runing 
to the first Station Sedar post quantity three hundred Acres of Marsh and 
Land be it More or less. .. together with all houses Orchards Gardines 
finces Woods waters high Grounds Suvanars Marshes & all other Appurtanaces 
Thereunto belonging.... 



62 



Signed Sealed and 
Delivered In presents 
of Us 

James Davis son 

his 
Joshua Squires 
mark 
his 
Stephen Harris 
mark 
his 
Thomas Arrowpox 
mark 



his 
Charles Squires Seal 
mark 
his 
Capt. John Mackey Seal 
mark 



Appendix 21 

Deed Abstract; 24 November 1752: 
pp. 599-600. 



Hyde County Deeds, Vol. A, Part II, 



. . .we Charles George Joshua and Timothy Squirs Malimuskeet Indians of 
the County and province aforesaid for and in Cinsideration of the Sum 
of Eighty three pounds Current money money of the Colony of Virginia 
of the value of Eighty Eight pounds ten Shillings and Eight pence 
Proclimation money... by William Stevenson Pedlar and trader in the 
Province aforesaid. . .tract of Land Containing ten thousand and two 
hundred and forty Acres lying and being in Hyde County in the Province 
of North Carolina aforesaid to have and to hold the Said ten thousand 
two hundred and forty acres of Land by estimation unto him the said 
William Stevenson,, . .this twenty fourth day of November 1752.... 



witnesses 
Ja s Cravene 
Will m Mearns 

Will 1 " Horsby (or Hornsby) 
In Greenfield 



signed in order 
his 
Charles Squires Seal 
mark 

Seal 



his 
Timothy Squires 
mark 



Seal 
Seal 



n 



Registrar Step Denning 

registered Oct. 24, 1757 



Appendix 22 



63 



Lease Abstract; 24 November 1752: 
pp. 601-603o 



Hyde County Deeds, Vol. A, Part II, 



...twenty fourth day of November in the year of our Lord one Thousand 
Seven hundred and fifty two between Charles Squires King of the Arro- 
meskeet Indians and the rest of the said Nation of the County of Hyde... 
and William Stevenson of the Province aforesaid trader... for the Sum 
of Eighty Eight pounds ten Shillings and Eight pence proclamation money 
to us... as also the rents hereafter Reserved... a certain tract of Land 
with all the appurtenances thereun to belonging or in any wise appur- 
taining Containing by estimation ten thousand and two hundred and forty 
Acres. Situate Lying and being in Hyde County in the Province aforesaid 
at Mattimuskeet on Pamplico Sound Buting and Bounding as follows (To wit) 
Begining at the Mouth of Old Mattimuskeet Creek Runing up that Creek 
and the northernmost branch of it to the head thereof. Thence to the 
Lake S:W: poles then along the Lake Southerly to Machapongo 
Bluf woods then N.E. to Pamplico Sound and from thence along Pantico 
Sound to the first Station... During the first term of Ninety-Nine years 
from the (unintelligible) .. .and paying yearly unto the Said Charles Squires 
his heirs and Successors the yearly Rent of one pepper corn in and 
upon the feast of Saint Michaell the Ark Angele If demanded. . .the Said 
hereby Demised Land and premises or any part Except the Liberty of hunting 
on the Said demised Land and Premises which we hereby Reserve to us the 
Said Charles Squires and the rest of the Matimuskeet Indians during our 
Natural Lives.... 



witnesses 
Ja s Craven 
Will Mearns 

Will m Horsby (or Hornsby) 
In Greenfield 



signed 
his 
Charles Squires 
mark 



Seal 



Appendix 23 



Deed Abstract; 24 November 1752: 
pp. 603-605. 



Hyde County Deeds, Vol, A, Part II, 



...twenty fourth day of November One Thousand Seven hundred and fifty 
two by and between Charles Squires, George Squires, Joshua Squires and 
Timothy Squires, Chief men of the Malimuskeet Indians of the one part 
and William Stevenson merchant or Pedlar in the Province aforesaid of the 
other part,. .consideration of the the (SIC) sum of Eighty three pounds 
Current money of the Colony of Virginia. . .Once Certain tract of Land 
lying and being at Malimuskeet on Pamptico Sound in the Province aforesaid 
Containing by estimation Ten thousand two hundred and forty Acres Begining 
at the Mouth of Old Matimuskeet Creek Runing up the Creek and the Northern- 
most Branch of it to the head thereof thence to the Lake S. W: Pole 
then Along the Lake Southerly to Machapongo Bluff woods thence 
N.E. to Pamptico Sound and from along Pamptico Sound to the first station 



Containing as aforesaid with all and Singular the Rights herediraents 
Appurtanances and apendants whatsoever to the Said land belonging or 
in any wise appurtaining . 



64 



witnesses 

.8 



Ja Craven 
Will m Mearns 

Will m Hornsby (or Horsby) 
In Greenfield 



witness 
George Turner 

his 
Benjamin Snell 
mark 



signed 
his 
Charles Squires Seal 
mark 

Seal 



Registrar Step Denning, 

registered Oct 24 1757 



his 
Timothy Squires 
mark 



Seal 



Seal 



Appendix 24 



Deed Abstract; 8 September 1755: 
pp. 535-536. 



Hyde County Deeds, Vol. A, Part II, 



> 



..J George Squires of Terel County and province of North Carolina for and 
in consideration of ten pounds... by John Linton of Hyde County... One ~ 
hundred Acres of Land lying on the head of Middle Creek Binding on 
Capt Henry Gibb's line Runing West-North west Including the Said Land 
in Equal Length. Breadth as doth by Law Require with all the Rights 
Priviledges thereunto Appurtaining. . .1 am the true Sole and Lawfull 
Owner of the Above Bargained Land... this Eighth day of September in the 
year of Our Lord 1755. 



witnesses 
David Duncan 
Thomas Jones 
Morris Jones 
John Jennet t 



Registrar Step Denning 



signed in order 
his 
George Squires Seal 
mark 
his 
John Mackey Seal 
mark 
his 
Charles Squires Seal 
mark 



Appendix 25 



Deed Abstract; 11 June 1755: Hyde County Deeds, Vol. A, Part II, p. 508. 



65 



o..I George Squires of Hyde in the province of North Carolina Planter... 
in Consideration,, . .of five Shillings Current Money of this Province... 
paid... by Richard W m Silvester of the County of Norfolk... of Virginia 
Planter... a Certain parcel of Land lying on the East-Side of Arromuskeet 
lake and begining at Samuell Smiths North Corner tree and from thence a 
Westly course down the Lake and Along the Lake Southerly Courses to Esquire 
Gibbs line and Samuell Smiths line to the first station, including the 
Cypruss Swamp, containing three hundred be the same more or less with all 
profits heridertiments. . .we the said George Squires and Charles Squires... 
this Eleventh day of June 1755. 



witnesses 
John Clewes 
Danaell Wills 
William Silvester 



Registrar Step Dening 



signed in order 
his 
George Squires Seal 
mark 
his 
Charles Squires Seal 
mark 



Appendix 26 



Deed Abstract; 27 September 1755: 
pp. 527-528. 



Hyde County Deeds, Vol. A, Part II, 



...I George Squires and Charles Squires and John Mackey Indians of 
Arrimuskeet in the County of Hyde... in Consideration of the Sum of 
fifty Pounds Proclamation Money... by John Jennett of the County and 
Province aforesaid. . .Three hundred Acres of Land lying and being between 
Samuell Smiths line and Joseph Gibbs line and binding on Bedmons line. 
Begining at the upper corner of Bedmons line of the Et Side and Runing 
along Samuell Smiths Line till it comes to Joseph Gibbs line and thence 
along the said Gibbs to the North Corner thence about a North Course along 
the Swamp till it bares a West Course to the first Station so concluding 
all the houses orchards fences and priviledges. . „ this 27 th day of September 
ano Dom 1755. . . . 



witnesses 
John Lockhart 
John Linton 



signed in order 
his 
Charles Squires Seal 
mark 
his 
John Mackey Seal 
mark 
his 
George Squires Seal 
mark 



66 



And that the said Indians 

Indians is firmly bound and agreed by these presents to pay the Quitrents 
that is due upon the Said Land above mentioned Unto the Said John Jennett 
and Doth warrant the Bargain free and Clear from all Incumbrances. 

Registrar Step n Denning 



Appendix 27 



Deed Abstract; 25 April 1756: Hyde County Deeds, Vol. A, Part II, 
pp. 538-540. 

,.„this twenty fifth day of April In the year of Our Lord God One thousand 
Seven hundred and fifty Six... by us Joseph Russell Indian living on 
Arromeskeet in Hyde County... and George Turner of Living in the aforesaid 
County... in Consideration of ten pounds proclamation Money... One Piece 
of the Land Situate Lying and being in the County and Province Aforesaid 
and Upon the west side of Wasoiken Creek Begining at a gut a little 
below John Marrows house So Runing No. up the Creek 80 pole and from 
thence Out and Variable Coruse to the first Station So that it Shall 
Amount to 40 Acres more or less of Land the Reversion and remainder of 
all and Singular. . .with there and every Rite and Member and appurtanance 
whatsoever, together with all houses orchards gardens fences woods 
waters high Ground Savanners Marshes and all appurtanances therunto 
Belonging. . . . 

witnesses signed 

J. Daws son his 

Samuell Selby Jun Joseph Russell 

mark 



Registrar Step Denning 



67 



Appendix 28 

Deed Abstract; 27 May 1756: Hyde County Deeds, Vol. A, Part II, 
pp. 532-533. 

...this the 27 day of May 1756 In the year of Our Lord God one thousand 
Seven hundred and fifty six... By us George Squires in Tyrell County... the 
One Party & George Turner Living in Hyde County. . .in Consideration of 
five pounds in hand paid... one peice of Land Situated Lying and being 
in the County and province Aforesaid upon Arromeskeet on the west side 
of Wiekajakin Creek Begining at the Mouth of Tho Arrowpres Creek so 
runing North west to a Black gum tree and from thence runing a South 
west course to Alligator Creek and from thence runing Along the main 
Creek to the first Station being fifty Acres of Land the Reversion and 
remainder of All and Singular. . .with their and every Right and Member 
and Appurtanances whatever together with all houses Orchards gardens 
fences woods waters high ground Savanners Marshes and all other 
Appurtanances there unto belonging unto him the Said George Turner.... 

witnesses signed 

William Selby his 

Thomas Smith George Squires Seal 

mark 

Registrar Step n Denning 

Appendix 29 

Deed Abstract; 3 June 1756: Hyde County Deeds, Vol. A, Part II, 
pp. 530-531. 

...I Charles Squires Indian of Arromeskeet in the County Aforesaid (Hyde p.g.) 
for and in Consideration of the Sum of twenty pounds Proclamation Money... 
by William Selby of county and province Aforesaid planter. . .One Hundred 
and fifty Acres of Land Lying and being on the South Side of Arromuskeet 
Creek in the Said County and province aforesaid Begining at Henry Gibbs 
Sen line and Runing with his line a half a mile back, thence W:N:W: 
three quarters of a Mile thence back to the Said Creek and from thence 
to the first Station So Concluding all the Houses Orchards fences & 
Priviledges to the Said Land or in Any wise Appurtaining. . . this 3 day 
of June anno Domini 1756. 

witnesses signed 

Step Denning his 

Benjamin Mason Charles Squires Seal 

mark 

Registrar Step Denning 



68 



Appendix 30 

Deed Abstract; 15 September 1760: Hyde County Deeds, Vol. A, Part II, 
pp. 742-743. 

...This fifteenth day of September In the year of Our Lord One Thousand 
Seven hundred and Sixty Between George Squires Son to John Squires The 
King of the Arromaskeet Indians in Hyde County... and Bartholomew Coin of 
the other part. Witnesseth that the Said George Squires with the consent 
of the other Cheif of the Arromaskeet Indians for and in consideration 
of the Sum of four Pounds Prock money ...the tract or parcel of Land 
Situate lying and being in Hyde County aforesaid and binding to the South 
Side of the Lake on Arromaskeet Land and binding to the lines of Thomas 
Gibbs & William Credle Containing by Estimation One hundred & fifty 
Acres Land be the same more or less Begining at a Cyprus tree in a 
Swamp and runs North about Eighty poles Joining to Said Thomas Gibbs line 
to the Lake thence West about 80 poles joining to the lake to William Credles 
Corner tree Thence about SW B S 100 poles binding to the Said Credles 
line to the Swamp a Cyprus tree Credles Corner Thence about East 120 to 
the first begining. Together with all profits and advantages hereditiments 
& appurtainances whatsoever to the Said tract.... 

witnesses signed in order 

Thomas Spencer his 

Luke Linton George Squires Seal 

John Spencer mark 

his 
James Tom Seal 

mark 

Registrar Stephen Denning 

Appendix 31 

Deed Abstract; 9 February 1761: Hyde County Deeds, Vol. A, Part II, 
pp. 770-771. 

o..this ninth day of February in the year of Our Lord one thousand and 
Seven hundred and Sixty One. Between George Squires Son to John Squires 
the King of Mallimuskeet Indians in Hyde County... and Stephen Emry 
Planter of the County and Province of the other Part Witnesseth- the 
Said George Squires with the consent of the other Chiefs of the Malimuskeet 
Indians of or in Consideration of the Sum of twenty five pounds prock 
Money to him in hand... all tract or Parcill of Land Situate Lying and 
being in the County of Hyde and Province aforesaid Begining at a Murtle (?) 
Point a Corner of John Spencer and runs Binding to the said John Spencers 
line till it takes in the Complement of three hundred acres of Land be 
the same More or less. Together with all profits advantages Heriditiments 
and appurtanances whatsoever.... 



69 



witnesses signed 

Barthra Coin his 

Thomas Spencer George Squires 
William Harriss mark 



cleared by Court April 29 1761 Registered June 6, 1761 

Step n Denning-Registrar 



Appendix 32 



Deed Abstract; 29 May 1761: Hyde County Deeds, Vol. A, Part II, 
pp. 786-787. 

...made this twenty-ninth day of May in the year of Our Lord one Thousand 
Seven hundred and Sixty one Between George Squires Son to the Said John 
Squires King of the Arromuskeet Indians in Hyde County... and Samuel Mid- 
gett of the other part Witnesseth That the Said George Squires with the 
Consent of the rest of the Arromiskeet Indians for and in Consideration of 
the Sum of twenty pounds Prock Money... all the tract or parcel of Land 
Lying and Binding on the South Side of Old Arromiskeet Creek in Hyde 
County aforesaid Joining Henry Gibbs line and John Simmons back line and 
Likewise William Selby's line for a tract or parcil of Land Containing 
two hundred Acres of Land... and I the Said George Squires with the consent 
of the Chief of the Arromeskeet Indians hath herein Set his hand and Fixed 
his Seal the day and year first above Writen. 

witnesses signed in order 

John Spencer his 

Thomas Spencer George Squires Seal 

mark 
his 
James Tom Seal 

mark 

(registered July 22 1761) 

Registrar Step n Denning 



70 



Appendix 33 

Deed Abstract; 8 June 1761: Hyde County Deeds, Vol. A, Part II, 
pp. 793-796. 

. . . this Eigth Day of June in the year of Our Lord one Thousand and Seven 
Hundred and Sixty one Between George Squires Charles Squires Timothy Squires 
James Tom John Squires and Josses Russell of the tribe of the Malimuskeet 
Indians and heirs of John Squires deceased of the one part and Thomas 
Jones and William Cummings Esquires & Bartholomew Coin of the other part... 
for and in Consideration of One hundred pounds Lawfull Money of great 
Britain in hand paid... all that tract of Land for Ten thousand two hundred 
and forty Acres Begining at the Mouth of Old Mallimuskeet Creek Runing 
up the Northernmost Branch of the Said Creek to the head thence South- 
west to the Lake along the Said Lake Southerly to the Westernmost part of 
Machapongo Bluff Land thence Along the Meander of the Sea Shore to the first 
Station. . .with the Messuages Fames Planations houses out houses Estates 
Rights and Emoluments thereunto belonging. . . 

witnesses signed in order 

Thomas Spencer his 

John Spencer Charles Squires Seal 

her mark 

Sarah Spencer his 

mark George Squires Seal 

mark 
his 
Timothy Squires Seal 
mark 
his 
James Tom Seal 

mark 
his 
John Squires Seal 

mark 
his 
Joses Russell Seal 
mark 
of Thomas Jones William Cummings and Bartholomew Coin the Sum of One 
hundred pounds Lawfull Money of Great Britain The Consideration Money 
within Mentioned we Say Received the Same by us 

note: all of the signatures 
and seals repeated again on the 
document 

Registrar Step Denning 



71 



Appendix 34 

Deed Complete; 21 November, 1792: Hyde County Record of Deeds, Vol.1, p. 51. 

To all to whome these presents shall Come Know ye that we Mary Longtom, 
Jean Longtom Martha Longtom John Longtom Tabitha Timothy Patience McKey 
for & in consideration of the Sum of fifty Pounds in hand P by Hutchens 
Selby the Receipt thereof We do hereby Acknowledge ourselves fully 
satisfied & Contented therewith have bargained & Sold and by these presents 
do bargain Sell & Convey unto Hutchens Selby his heirs Ex s Adm rts & Assigns 
A Tract of Land Containing by Estimation Ten Thousand two hundred & Fifty 
Acres Lying at Mattamaskeet, on Pamplico Sound Begining At the Mouth of 
Old Mattamuskeet Creek Runing the Creek & the Northernmost branch up it 
to the head thereof. Then to the Lake SW Poles then down the Lake South- 
erly to Matchapunga Bluff Woods thence N° Et to Pamplico Sound to the 
first Station, being the Land Granted to the Mattamaskeet Indians the 
first Day of April Domo 1727- To have and to hold unto the Said Hutchens 
Selby his heirs and Assigns free and Clear from Claim of any of us the 
Said Mary Longtom Jean Longtom Martha Longtom John Longtom Tabitha 
Timothy & Patience McKey our heirs Aper & Adm 11 Warrantry and Defendcry 
Unto the Said Hutchens Selby his heirs & Assigns the Above Bargained Land 
In Witness whereof we have hereunto put our hand and Seals this 21 st day 
of November 1792_ 
Signe Seald and Delivered in the Presents of us 

her 
Witness Tabithy Timothy Seal 

mark 
Za Spencer her 

Hyde County Nov 1792 Patience McKey Seal 

This deed from the Indians mark 

of Mattamaskeet to Hutchens her 

Selby was Proved in Court by Mary Longtom Seal 

the Zachariah Spencer a witness mark 

Let it be Regestd her 

Jean Longtom Seal 
mark 

her 
Marthey Longtom Seal 
mark 
his 
John Longtom Seal 
mark 
test B. Forman CLK 
& Regestd the 9 th of April 1793 by 

Henry Clark P. Regestor 



72 



Appendix 35 

Apprentice Reference; March Term, 1765: Hyde County Court Minutes, 
1764-1791 (Part I). 

March Term, 1765 

"A Motion of Patrick Gordon ordered that William Gibbs be summoned to 
next court to Show Cause if any he has why Cati Collings An Indian Women 
now in his Service Should not be set free." 



Note: there is a break in the records until 1767 at this point, so 
that it was not possible to follow the course of the action. 



Appendix 36 



Supportive Documents, Apprentice Bonds; 18 & 19 May 1804: Hyde County 
Apprentice Bonds. 

Stephen Fletcher Ship master Lawnu (?) resident in the county of Hyde 
& District of Mattamuskeet Disputfully Setteth forth to the wershipful 
the Justices of the peace, and of the county court of Said County- that 
Joshua Longtom a base born of Jane alias Jenny longtom Indian born & 
residing in said County supposted to have been begotten by a whight 
father now of the age of about tin years- is going at random with out 
that control & nutrition So Essenual to his own future good & that of the 
Community at large, & that in the Event of Jus General deeming it must 
that the Said Joshua shal be bound an apprentice- that he offers to take 
him by the Lawful Indenture- I hereby Impowers authorize & prays John 
Jordan Esq. to sign on the part & behalf of the Said Stephen Such In- 
dentures & that this in presentation consent Jus may be filed in the 
clerks office if deemed by the said court. 

18f^ May attest signed 

1804 S. Fletcher 



Also base born in the Same neibourhood & unprovided with masters Price 
longtom & Jordan Longtom base born sons of Polly longtom. the first 
named about 13 or 14- the last named aged about 9 years-blacke father 
he does not consent to take but prays that they may be provided with 
masters- 



73 



Little John Pugh Ship master merchant in Hyde County State north Carolina 
& in mattamuskeet district offers & consents to take Jordan Longtom a 
base born boy. now of about the age of nine or ten years the Son of 
Polly alias Mary Longtom an Indian woman born also & indent in Hyde 
also (Jordan also begotten by a negro)- an apprentice by Lawful Indenture 
I hereby authoris Impowers Inquists James Watson Esq. for & in behalf 
of him the Said Little John to sign Such Indentures- & consents that these 
presents may be filed In the Clerks office 19th may 1804. 

attest signed 

Little John Pugh 



Appendix 37 



Apprentice Records; May & August 1804: Hyde County Court Minutes, 
1797-1806. 

"On Motion Joshua Longtoms be bound as an apprentice to Capt. Stephen 
Fletchers to Learn the art of a Seaman & mariner to Untill he attains 
the age of Twenty one years Now aged ten years." May Term, 1804, p. 347. 

"On Motion Jordon Longtom be bound as an apprentice to Capt. Little John 
Pugh to Learn the art and mastery of a and marinor to untill 
he attains the age of Twenty one years now aged Nine years." May Term, 
1804, p. 347. 

"On Motion Simpson Mackey a base born person of Cullor be bound as an 
apprentice to Thomas Spencers to serve till he attains the age of Twenty 
one years." May Term, 1804, p. 354. 

"Chadocks (possibly Shadrach p.g.) Mackey a base born person of Cullor 
be bound as an apprentice to Washington Gibbs till he attains the age of 
Twenty one years." May Term, 1804, p. 354. 

"On Motion order that a Citation to Capt. Little J. Pugh to appear 
at next Court To show Cause if any he hath Why the indenture of John L. 
Tom may not be Rescinded." August Term, 1804, p. 367. 



74 



Appendix 38 

Slave Uprising; 13 September, 1831 and 15 September, 1831, and Spring 
Term 1834: Hyde County Miscellaneous Records: Slave Uprising, 1831-1834. 

State Of North Carolina To any Lawfull Officer To Execute and return 

Hyde County 
Whereas Complaint hath been made to us Nasa Farrow Foster Jarvis and William 
Farrow three of the Justices fore said County By information of Several 
men That Ben belonging to Ely Smallwood has Been at Various times pro- 
pagating and devising means for Insurrection among the slaves of this 
County and hath Also asked the oppion of a white man what he thought of 
the practicleity of obtaining their Liberty, and that he also made an 
attack upon the Body of John Caffee on Board of his own Liter these are 
therefore to Command you forth with to apprehend the said Ben and him 
safely keep and also notice his master or Overseer to appear before us or 
any Other Justices of said County to answer the above Charges alledged 
Against him that he may be further dealt with according to Law Given under 
Our hand and seals On swan quarter in said County the 13 of September 1831 

Summons on behalf of the State Nasa Farrow seal 

Bertie Gibbs Henry Boomer F. Jarvis seal 

Abram Boomer and John Caffee William Farrow seal 

State of North Carolina To the Keeper of the Common Goal of the said County 

Hyde County 
Wheras We Nasa Farrow Foster Jarvis and William Farrow Three of the 
Justices of the peace for said County having heard the Evidence and 
found Negro Ben Guilty of the Charge alledge against him By the Oath 
of John Caffee these are therefore to Command You to Receive him in 
your said Goal the said Negro Ben for the Crime aforesaid untill he is 
discharge By due coarse of Law Given under Our hands and seals this 
15th of September 1831. 

William Farrow 
Nasa Farrow 
F. Jarvis 

State of North Carolina Superior Court of Law Spring Term 1834 

Hyde County 
The Jurors for the State on their oath present that a free white person 
Known only to the Jurors as one Thompson and professing himself a minister 
of the Gospel of the Baptist denomination late of the county of Hyde, 
did with force and arms on the 5th day of May and in the year of our 
Lord one thousand, eight hundred and thirty four, in the county of Hyde, 
preach and promulgate seditious principles, encouraging our Slave population 
to perpetrate acts of insubordination and insurrection to the prejudice 
of those owning slaves, to the jeopardy of the wellbeing of our community 
and against the peace and dignity of the state. 

S. Miller Sol. 



75 



Appendix 39 

Complete Document; Spring Term, 1843: Hyde County Miscellaneous Records, 
Unlawful Negro Marriages, 1843. 

State of North Carolina) Superior Courts of Law 

Hyde County ) Spring Term A.D. 1843 

The jurors for the state, upon their oath presents that Marina Mackey, 
late of the County of Hyde, a free woman of Colour, on the first day of 
April in the year of our Lord, one* thousand Eight hundred and forty three 
with force and arms, at and in the County aforesaid, did unlawfully 
intermarry with a certain male slave named Riley, the property of 
R.U.S. Moore; contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and 
provided and against the peace and dignity of the state. And the jurors 
aforesaid upon their oath aforesaid do further present that said Marina 
Mackey late of the County of Hyde, a free woman of Colour as aforesaid, on 
the day and year last aforesaid, with force and arms at and in the County 
aforesaid did unlawfully cohabit and live together as man and wife, with 
said Riley, male slave as aforesaid, the property of said R.U.S. Moore; 
Contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided and 
against the peace and dignity of the state. 



Henry S. Clark Solicitor 



Note: Marina Mackey is also called Marina 
Barber on other documents. 



Appendix 40 



Apprentice Bonds: Hyde County Apprentice Papers, 1771-1849. 

Price Mackey, described as a free boy of color, was bound to Major Clayton- 
29 February 1836. 

Jack Longtom, described as a free boy of color, bound to Thomas Ballance- 
27 February, 1839. 

Benjamin Longtom, described as a free boy of color, bound to Thomas 
Ballance- 27 February, 1839. 

William Longtom, described as a free boy of color, bound to Thomas 
Ballance- 27 February, 1839. 

Shadrach Mackey (age 5) & Frederick Longtom (age 6) , described as free 
persons of color, bound to Will R. Palmer until the age of 21 to learn 
the trade of mechanic- 31 May 1841. 

Jordan Long Tom, described as a free boy of color, bound to Benjamin 
Ballance to be a farmer- 31 May, 1841. 



76 



Warrant issued for the appearance of William R. Palmer to appear before 
the Court of Pleas and Grants on the citation of Nancy Long torn to show 
cause why the orphan named Frederick McKey should not have his bond 
rescinded & be released from bond- 10 July, 1942. 

John Long Tom (age 7), described as a free person of color, bound to 
William R. Palmer- 24 February, 1847, to be a farmer. 

Martha Ann Long Tom, described as a free girl of color, bound to William 
R. & Cornelia Palmer- 24 February, 1847. Aged 9- to be farmer 

John Long Tom (age 4), bound to Joseph F. Cox to learn the trade of 
farmer, described as a free boy of color- 23 August, 1847. 

David Long Tom (age 9), described as a free boy of color, bound to 
Joseph F. Cox to be a farmer- 23 August, 1847. 

Julius Sparrow Paine McKey (age 7), described as a free boy of color, 
bound to David Gibbs to learn the trade of farmer- 1 March, 1848. 

Peledge McKey, described as a free boy of color, bound to Benjamin 
Pugh- 29 November, 1836. 

Bannister Longtom, described as a free boy of color, bound to Thomas 
Ballance- 27 February, 1839. 

Appendix 41 

Apprentice Bonds: Hyde County Apprentice Papers, 1850-1892. 

John Longtom (age 16), described as a free boy of color, bound to 
Benjamin R. Roper to be a farmer- 12 May, 1856. 

Janey Elizabeth McKay (age 6), described as a free girl of color, bound to 
Martha A. Swindell to be a seamtress- 13 May, 1856. 

John Longtom (age 14), described as a free boy of color, bound to Wm. S. Cox 
to be a farmer- 9 February, 1857. 

Gatsey Mackey (age 8), a orphan, bound to Sophia & Jesse Jennett as a 

house servant & seamstress, described as a free girl of color- 18 November, 1860. 

Mary Mackey (age 10), an orphan, bound to Nancy Tilloone as a seamstress, 
14 May, 1866. 

Shadrach Mackey (age 18), described as a free boy of color, bound to 
Nathaniel Bickwith- 26 August, 1851. 

John Laban Long Tom (age 10), described as a free boy of color, bound 
to F.S. Roper to be a farmer- 26 August, 1851. 



77 



Martha Longtom, child of Martha Longtom (age 10) , described as a free 
girl of color, bound to Hulliard Gibbs- 26 August, 1851 

Nancy Elizabeth Mackey (age 3), described as girl of color, bound to 
A. B. Swindell to be a seamstress- 29 November, 1852. 

Elizabeth Mackey (age 4), described as a free girl of color, bound to 
Thomas P. Pugh to be a housekeeper- 20 November, 1852. 

Ann Eliz. Mackey (age 8), described as a free girl of color, bound to 
Wm Watson Spencer- 22 August 1853. 

Scot Mackey (age 5) & Wm. H. Mackey (age 2), described as free boys of color, 
bound to Burriago Hudson to be farmers- 20 May, 1854„ 

Wm. H. Mackey (age 18 months), described as a free boy of color, bound to 
William H. Creedle to be a farmer- 28 February, 1854. 



Appendix 42 

1850 Census: Seventh Census of the United States, 1850, North Carolina, 
Volume XXI, The Counties of Hertford and Hyde. 

Mattamuskeet District 

Mary Longtom, aged 10, Female, Mulatto 

Mackey, aged 5, Male Mulatto 

Mary Mackey, aged 22, Female, Mulatto 
Nancy Mackey, aged 6/12, Female, Mulatto 

Samuel Mackey, aged 30, Male, Mulatto, Laborer 
Priscilla Mackey, aged 30, Female, Mulatto 
Vashti Mackey, aged 11, Female, Mulatto 
Anson Mackey, aged 10, Male, Mulatto 
Sabring Mackey, aged 8, Female, Mulatto 

Currituck District 

Tom Longtom aged 27, Male, Mulatto, Laborer 

James Mackey, aged 37, Male, Mulatto, Farmer 
Spencer Mackey, aged 24, Male, Mulatto, Laborer 

Selby Mackey, aged 49, Male, Mulatto, Farmer 

Ann Mackey, aged 32, Female, Mulatto 

George Mackey, aged 18, Male, Mulatto, Laborer 

Susan A. Mackey, aged 11, Female, Mulatto 

Elizabeth Mackey, aged 7, Female, Mulatto 

Ann A. Mackey, aged 6, Female, Mulatto 

Ritty Mackey, aged 3, Female, Mulatto 

John J. Mackey, aged 7, Male, Mulatto 

David Mackey, aged 5, Male, Mulatto 

William Mackey, aged 1/12, Male, Mulatto 



78 
Appendix 43 

1860 Census: Eighth Census of the United States, 1860, North Carolina, 
Vol. XXI, The Counties of Hertford and Hyde. 

Kettz Mackey-13-female-Black-servant. . „ . .p. 186 

John Longtom-15-male-black-farmer,, . . . .p. 188 

p. 214 Swan Quarter 

Cason Macky-45-male-f ree mulatto-farm labor-illiterate 

Priscilla Macky-34-female-free mulatto 

Patsy Macky-1-female-free mulatto 

p. 308 

Jas. Mackey-50-male free black 
S. Mackey-45-female black 
Jas. Mackey-15-male black 

p. 311 

M. Mackey-12-male-free black 

Spencer Mackey-44-male-free black 

p. 310 

Geog. Mackey-37-male 
One Mackey-30-f emale 
Ann Mackey-18-female 

p. 215 Fairfield 

Anson Mackey-20-male-free mulatto 

Sabring Macky-16-female-free mulatto 

Price Longtom-73-male-free mulatto 

Henry Macky-34-male-free mulatto 

Kizca Macky-30-female-free mulatto servant 

Arnold Macky-14-male-free mulatto 

Israel Macky-11-male-free mulatto 

Ann Macky-10-female-free mulatto 

Mary Macky-9-female-free mulatto 

Laura Macky-8-female-free mulatto 

Vicy Macky-3-female-free mulatto 

Martha Macky-2-female-free mulatto 

8 Collins listed in order next- all free mulatto 

p. 222 

Pvachel Braddock-50-female-free black 

A. Mackey-20-female-free black 

Seth Mackey-14-male-free black 

W. Mackey-7-male-free black 

Benj . Mackey-35-male-f ree black 
M.J. Mackey-23-female-free black 
Jas. Mackey-7-male-free black 
C. Mackey-5-female-free black 
J. Mackey-3-male-free black 
Salley Mackey-2-female-free black 
Jane Mackey-1-female-f ree black 



79 



Appendix 44 

1870 Census: Ninth Census of the United States (1870) North Carolina, 
Vol. XXV, Counties Hyde-Iredell. 

p. 31 

Currituck Township 

Campbell McKey-head of Household-age 55-male-Black-farmer-born in 

N.C. illiterate in his household: 

Harriet McKey-age 52-female-Black-house keeper-illiterate 

Patsey McKey-age 30-female-Black-at home-illiterate 

John McKey-age 15-male-Black-at home 

Hilyard McKey-age 11-male-Black 

(?) - age 1-male-Black 

p. 59 

Fairfield District 

John Mackey-Head of Household-age 22-male-mulatto-farmer-literate-born in N.C. 

in his Household: 

Elizabeth Mackey-age 19-female-mulatto-Keeping House-P.C. -cannot write 

John Mackey-age 8 months-male-mulatto 

p. 60 

H. (Henry) Mackey-age 55-male-Black-Farmer-illiterate (Head of Household) 

Kisiah Mackey-age 38-female-Black-Housekeeper-illiterate 

Ann Mackey-age 14-female-rBlack-at home 

Vicy An Mackey-age 13-female-Black-at home 

Ann E. Mackey-age 21-female-Black-at home 

Mary E. Mackey-age 17-female-Black-at home 

Marth Mackey-age 10-female-Black-at home 

Julia Mackey-age 8-female-Black-at home 

Sarah Mackey-age 7-female-Black-at home 

Henry Mackey-age 4-male-Black 

p. 63 

Fairfield Township 

B. (Benjamin) Mackey-age 40-male-mulatto-laborer-illiterate (head of household) 

in household: 

Mary J. (Jane) Mackey-age 30-female-Black-housekeeper-illiterate 

Mihala Mackey-age 10-female-mulatto-at home-illiterate 

Livina Mackey-age 16-female-Black-at home-literate